judge gorsuch: i do, mr. chairman. sen. grassley: so if i ask you to tell me if heller was rightly decided, would you answer that question for me? i wouldrsuch: senator, rightly respond that it is a president of the united states supreme court, and as a good judge from you don't approach that question anew as if it had never been decided. that would be the wrong way to approach it. i will tellviews, you, mr. chairman, belong over here. i leave those at home. he said he wanted a fair judge, and that is what i want as a lawyer. i want to decide on the facts of my client's case and leave what he had for breakfast at the breakfast table. part of being a good judge is coming in and taking precedent as it stands, and your personal

have about the precedent absolutely nothing to do with a good job of a judge. sen. grassley: let me ask you about citizens united. in this case, the supreme court held that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditure by a nonprofit corporation. do you agree with the decision? judge gorsuch: senator from i would give you the same response. i know people have their views personally about lots of supreme court decisions, and about a lot of other things. we are all human beings. i get that. i'm not an algorithm. they have not yet replaced judges with algorithms. i think ebay is trying, and maybe successfully. we all human beings, but the job is to put that aside and approach the law as you find it, and that is part of the precedent of the united states supreme court that i am sworn as a sitting judge to give the full weight and respect to do

president -- due precedent. weregrassley: those cases 5-4 decisions so let me ask you about one that was unanimous. the supreme court ruled that 9-0 that the obama administration could not tell the church where its ministers convened. the only thing controversial about the case is the obama administration tried to convince the supreme court that government bureaucrats could tell a church who is ministers could be. like i said, that case was 9-0. can you tell me if that case was decided correctly? judge gorsuch: respectfully, senator, i give you the same answer. sen. grassley: ok, those were relatively recent cases. let's talk about cases that have been around for a while. let's look at gideon v ryan wainwright.eon v.

it's has a criminal defendant has the right to an appointed attorney if you can't afford one. tvryone who watches cop shows knows this law. can you tell me if you agree with the principle of gideon? is it the same answer, the same reason? judge gorsuch: mr. chairman, it is certainly a seminal decision of the united states supreme court. it is a very old decision of the supreme court now. it has been reaffirmed many times. so i could talk to you about the judge --hat are good that a good judge considers in but i am precedent, not in a position to tell you whether i personally like or dislike any president. -- precedent. denton is a seminal prece of the united states supreme

court and it deserves respect on the basis. president is like our shared family history as judges. it deserves our respect because of represent our collective wisdom, and to come in and think that just because i am new, or the latest thing, and know better than everybody who comes before we would be an act of hubris inappropriate to the judicial role. sen. grassley: but what if i ask you about bush versus gore? judge gorsuch: i know some people in this room who have some opinions on that, i'm sure, senator. but as a judge, it's precedent of the united states supreme court, and it deserves the same ofpect as other precedents the united states supreme court when you are coming to it as a judge and it has to be analyzed under the law of precedent. to. grassley: well, let's go

kind of a more controversial issue, but along the same lines i've been asking you. i think the case that most people are thinking about right now and the case that every nominee gets asked about, roe v. wade, can you tell me whether roe was decided correctly? judge gorsuch: senator, again, i would tell you that roe v. wade, decided in 1973, is the precedent of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed and the considerations and interests are important there, and all the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. it is precedent of the united states supreme court, reaffirmed in 1992 and in several other cases. a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. what -- sen. grassley: what about

case where the court found the constitutional right to privacy? can you tell me your views on griswold? judge gorsuch: senator, it is a is nowent that 50 years old, involving the right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. it is 50 years old. the reliance interests are obvious. it has been repeatedly reaffirmed. all very important factors, again come in analyzing precedent. sen. grassley: well, i think i'm going to stop questioning, but i will sum up what you and i just talked about in regard to precedent so everybody understands the principles that are at stake here. there are 2 reasons why you can't give your opinion on these cases. one, i believe, is independence. the other is fairness to future

litigants. is that the way you see it? , senator.uch: it is if i were to start telling you which are are my favorite precedents or least favorite or if i viewed precedents in that fashion, i would be taking my hand and suggesting to litigants that i have already made up my mind about their cases. that is not a fair judge. i did not want that kind of judge when i was a lawyer, and i don't want to be that kind of judge now. i made a vow to myself i wouldn't be. that is the fairness problem. and the independence problem -- if it looks like i'm giving hints or previous or intimations about how i might rule, i think that is the beginning of the end of the independent judiciary, the judges have to make effectively campaign promises for confirmation. i've notlly, senator, done that in this process and i'm not about to start. sen. grassley: thank you. i will deal back eight seconds

-- yield back eight seconds. [laughter] sen. grassley: senator feinstein. sen. feinstein: thank you, mr. chair. welcome, judge, and good morning. i wasn'twere on roe, going to begin with this, but i well recall the time we spent in our office and we talked about precedent and in my opening remarks i indicated that if anything had super precedent, roe data, in terms of the numbers, and i put that in the record. here is why it becomes a concern . the president said that he would appoint someone who would overturn roe. youpointed out to me that view precedent in a serious way, in that it added stability to the law. could you elaborate on the point that you made in my office on that? judge gorsuch: i'd be delighted to, senator.

part of the value of precedent -- it has lots of value. it has value in and of itself because it is our history, and our history has value intrinsically. ie: we are going to separate from the senate judiciary committee to listen to the president following the meeting with the republican house conference. what was part of the deal, mr. president? vonnie: the president there saying "i think we will get the vote thursday." there are members of the republican house conference. we will hopefully hear from paul ryan, speaker, in two minutes. back to the judiciary hearing. judge gorsuch: once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law. what was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue.

we move forward. senator, the value of that is united states supreme court takes something like 70 or 80 cases a year. that is a tiny fraction of all the disputes in our federal legal system. my law clerks tell me something like .001%. and they are unanimous in those cases which have divided circuit judges. that is why the supreme court largely take the case, because it has divided us. it is one of the cases where we disagree. they are unanimous 40% of the time. sen. feinstein: one other question. judge gorsuch: sure. sen. feinstein: do you view roe as having super precedent? judge gorsuch: senator, super precedent -- sen. feinstein: in numbers? judge gorsuch: it has been reaffirmed many times, i can say that. sen. feinstein: dozens.

i would like to take you back to 2005, when you were in the justice department, and i want to explain to you why i am going here. this has to do with torture. the intelligence committee was 2006, and attorney general gonzales played a role in this, of the nature of the enhanced interrogation techniques. and we were given a very soft the. -- soft view. senator rockefeller became chairman of a committee in 2007 and began a study of 3 detainees and the enhanced interrogation techniques. when i became chairman in 2009, i added that, and we took all of the major detainees and looked at them in a six-year study. the staff spent long hours analyzing every cable, every email, looking at more than 100

interviews, and essentially putting in a 7000-page report 32,000 footnotes documenting where the information -- no conclusions, just facts. that 7000-page report has remained classified. i have read it. summaryt out a 450-page which is public, and in that summary we indicate that those cases that the administration spelled out where torture produced operable intelligence was simply not so. we elaborate on that in the big report, and my hope is that one day not too distant that report will be declassified so the american people can actually see. but i wanted to ask you some questions along these lines. it is my understanding that the set of talking points prepared

for a press conference for the attorney general on november 22, 2005, the talking points ask whether "aggressive interrogation techniques employed by the administration yielded any valuable information." and in the margin next to this question, you hand wrote one "yes." what information did you have that the bush administration's aggressive interrogation techniques were effective? judge gorsuch: senator, i would have to see the document. i don't recall -- sen. feinstein: all right, that's fair enough. why don't we do this? i would be happy to share the documents with you. i took these pages out of my binder -- judge gorsuch: fair enough. sen. feinstein: so i wouldn't have to pause. let me just pulled up that answer and we will get you the --uments on that, because

let me do the next question. in december 2005, after the passage of the detainee treatment act, you advocated that president bush should issue a signing statement to accompany the law. in any no you sent to -- in an n.l. you sent to steven bradbury and others, you said the signing statement -- this is your quotation -- "what help in nokia late against the -- what help inoculate against the potential for the administration criticized in the future for not having changes to the interrogation policy in light of the mccain portion of the amendment." this statement clearly and in a formal way would be hard to dispute later, puts down a marker to the effect that mccain is best read as essentially codify existing -- codifying existing interrogation policies."

to be clear, the context was that earlier in 2005, the justice department's office of legal counsel had concluded that cia interrogation tactics like waterboarding and sleep derivation did not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. as advocatingail a continuation of these interrogation techniques. and worse, saying that senator mccain's amendment actually codify them, which it did not. is that true, and does not mean that when you wrote this female you were condoning -- this email, you were condoning waterboarding is lawful? judge gorsuch: senator, i would want to see the mail again. i don't for comfortable commenting on documents in front of me. i do remember -- sen. feinstein: my staff has the

documents so they can bring them down to you -- judge gorsuch: great, that would be wonderful. sen. feinstein: i will put aside this part. you will have the documents. i will go on to the next subject -- judge gorsuch: no, that's fine. i would just like to know what i am talking about. my recollection generally, from 12 years ago -- sen. feinstein: eric, bring him the documents, please. [laughter] judge gorsuch: thank you, eric. my recollection generally working on the detainee senator, was that the decisionafter by the supreme court, there were a lot of habeas petitions coming in from detainees at guantanamo bay, some brought by thereend neal katyal, and was an effort by some in the administration, along with many on capitol hill, to try and provide a regime for the

processing of those claims in a way that would conform with the youngstown ideal of congress and the president acting together in unison. and that senator mccain and senator graham put together legislation that emphasized that not only was torture unacceptable in which it always had been under u.s. law, but the cruel and -- cruel, inhuman, integrating treatment was unacceptable -- sen. feinstein: let me help you here. i know from the documents you worked on the graham effort. a self-assessment you wrote said you "help coordinate the legislative effort on the graham amendment within doj and in consultation with dod and others." judge gorsuch: that's absolutely right, senator. i sure did, and i am proud of it, because we managed to come up with a bipartisan bill that

passed this body with 80, 90 votes, i don't remember, which did two things. one, affirm this country's commitment to prevent cruel, inhuman, and grading treatment. and second, provided a regime which was agreed by the congress and president on how guantánamo detainees should have their claims processed. sen. feinstein: except after you read the documents, just so you know, the conclusion that we, away with-- we come is that when the bill on the mccain amendment was about to be presson, you forwarded articles explaining what having these 2 provisions together meant. that was the mccain amendment prohibiting torture and confining it to the army field manual. andy graham amendment, which would -- and the graham amendment, which would bar habea

words, a detainee could not use the habeas corpus right to file in a court of law and challenge their conditions of detention. so that was looked at as offsetting mccain, but basically preventing habeas corpus from being used, and of course, it was overturned by the court. judge gorsuch: senator, you are absolutely right that it was eventually litigated, as all these things are. there was a bipartisan effort, and it was between the department of defense -- department of defense wanted congressional approval for something, so that they knew what the rules would be. they were desperate to have some congressional involvement and investment in this process. and as a lawyer -- that is all it was, a lawyer for a client,

write, who was advising them on how to go about doing that legally in conjunction with senator graham's office and others. it was a bipartisan effort, and we put together our best effort. the d.c. circuit upheld it. the supreme court of the united states many, many years later found that the process was insufficient. but to say that there was no process would be inaccurate, too, because the detainee treatment act had a long list of prescribed processes, and the question was simply whether they were adequate enough under the suspension clause, and i was a close case that divided the court very good -- that was a close case that divided the court very closely, and i respect that decision as precedent of the supreme court no less than any other. sen. feinstein: one last question on this. when president bush signed the detainee treatment act, he

issued a statement that he would construe the law consistent with his powers as commander-in-chief. according to press reports, administration officials confirmed, "the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security." in other words, the signing statement reflected the president's belief that he had the power -- vonnie: you've been watching the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. let's get to speaker paul ryan following trump's meeting with republican house conference. : we were under this money to welcome the president of the united states the conference. i want to thank for taking the time to come to the hill to talk to our members and is steadfast leadership through this process. president trump was here to do what he does best, and that was to close the deal. he was all in and we are all into and this obamacare nightmare.

i think what this comes down to is what it set on those banners last night at his rally in kentucky, "promises made, promises kept." obamacare was anything but that. people were promised one thing and given another hit they would -- given another. they were promised lower premiums and premiums are skyrocketing. they were promised they could keep their plan and many millions have lost their plan. they were promised more choices, and now millions of americans have no health care choice at all. seven years of this failed experiment is enough. this is our chance to build a better, fairer, and a better health care system for all americans. all of us -- the president come the house, and the senate -- we made a promise. we made a promise that we would repeal and replace this disastrous law, and we are going to keep our word. >> well, good morning.

we are just coming out of a conference with the president. enthusiastic, i thought he made a very passionate -- vonnie: that was speaker paul ryan on capitol hill following a meeting with president trump and the republican house conference from talking about the american health care act and sing the promises made would be promises kept. let's get back to the senate judiciary committee and the confirmation hearings for judge neil gorsuch. judge gorsuch: and that's my recollection, and matt waxman would be another one, and so that is my recollection, senator, sitting here. i will study these. sen. feinstein: ok, let me ask you a question on wiretapping. in december 2005, news broke that president bush had ordered the nsa to intercept the content of certain communications of americans without a court order outside of the requirements of the foreign intelligence .urveillance act, known as fisa

you helped prepare the public defense of the program. for example, in draft testimony you prepared for attorney general gonzales defending the , "these you wrote this authorities are vested in the president and they are inherent in the office. they cannot be diminished or legislated away by other co-equal branches of government. " bush'sement, president solicitor general, "found this proposition unconvincing," and it was removed from the testimony. do you still live that the president has inherent authority -- this is important -- to intercept the communications of americans in the united states that cannot be legislated away by congress? judge gorsuch: goodness no, senator, and i didn't believe it at the time. what i was serving at the time, as i recall -- i would be happy to review whatever you have

before you -- is i was acting in the capacity as a speechwriter and taking material produced by the components that were responsible for litigating these issues, including mr. clement, paul clement, dear friend of mine, and the office of legal counsel and others, and assembling it to put words together that sounded like english. and i think people like my writing. and that was my job. i think i was to describe. sen. feinstein: ok, let's move on. i would like to go to the heller case. when we met in my office, we discussed the heller decision, which you said you were open to discussing since the case had been decided. at that time he said he thought both of the majority opinion written by justice scalia and the dissent written by justice stevens were brilliant examples of original is some --

originalism, where both justice sought to explain the reasoning by looking at the original public meaning of the second amendment. which decision did you agree with, and why? judge gorsuch: well, senator, we have alluded to my difficulty here. i do think everything you have just said is accurate. both justice scalia and justice stevens wrote excellent opinions in that case. i am not here, though, to grade my boss' work. it would be impertinent of me, i suspect. i certainly think they would think so. i also worry that saying i agree with one or the other will indicate to clients or to litigants in future cases -- because it is now precedent of the united states supreme court. it is binding, it is the law, whether we like it or not. if i start saying i like one

opinion or like the other opinion -- sen. feinstein: all right, i will let you off the hook. let me go to another one. judge gorsuch: thank you, senator. sen. feinstein: in dc. v. heller, the majority opinion written by justice scalia recognized "of course the second amendment was not a limited." wrote "lawsia restricting access to guns by the mentally ill or laws were --ting gun possession forbidding gun possession in schools were consistent with the limited nature of the second amendment." "stice scalia also wrote that weapons that are most useful in military service, and 16 rifles "nd the like, may be banned, without infringing on the second amendment. do you agree with that statement that under the second amendment, weapons that are most useful in military service, m-16 rifles and the like, may be banned?

senator, heller makes clear the standard that we judges are supposed to apply. the question is whether it is a gun in common use, for self-defense, and that may be subject to reasonable regulation . that is the test, as i understand it. there is lots of ongoing litigation about which weapons qualified under those standards. and i can't prejudge that litigation -- sen. feinstein: no, i'm just asking do you agree with his statement, yes or no? judge gorsuch: the statement out of the heller decision -- sen. feinstein: justice scalia's statement? judge gorsuch: whatever is the law -- it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with senator, respectively. it is a matter of it being the law. my job is to apply and enforce the law. sen. feinstein: all right, fair enough. let me give you another one. the fourth circuit -- the judge offered a separate concurrence in the case colby v. hogan.

"no one really knows what the right answer is with respect to regulation of firearms. i'm unable to draw from the profound ambiguities of the second amendment an invitation to courts to preempt this most volatile of political subjects and arrogate to themselves decisions that have been historically assigned to other, more democratic actors. disenfranchising the american people on this life-and-death subject would be the greatest and most serious -- gravest and most series of steps. it is their community, not ours. it is their safety, not ours. it is their lives, not ours." do you agree with the judge that the second amendment is ambiguous? if so, should the ambiguity be decided by the courts or by legislatures? judge gorsuch: i would begin by saying that i hold judge wilkinson in high regard.

he is a very fine man and a very fine judge. sen. feinstein: can you do yes or no? judge gorsuch: no, i wish i could. sen. feinstein: i wish you could, too. judge gorsuch: the supreme court in the united states is in file because it is infallible, as justice jackson reminds us. it is final because it is final. judge wilkinson had his view, and the supreme court has spoken . heller is the law of the land. judge wilkinson may disagree with it, and i understand that, and -- but he will follow the law no less than any other judge in america, i'm confident of that. he is a very fine judge who takes his oath seriously. sen. feinstein: ok. on super that question , and let me end with

one on workers rights, if i might. as you know, there have been a number of supreme court cases where the court has made it harder for workers to hold their employers accountable when they have experienced this determination or be injured -- experienced discrimination or be injured on the job. we have discussed that one case. let me give you a short list -- ledbetter v. goodyear tire, which limited the ability of women to seek equal pay. fbl financial services, 2009, which made it more difficult to prove age discrimination. and the university of southwest 2013,medical center in which made it more difficult for employees to prove they had been retaliated against for reporting discrimination, including based on race, gender, national

origin, religion, and other factors. -- vance v. ball, which made it more difficult for workers to prove discrimination claims. 5-4,of these cases were and justice scalia voted in the employee in every case. president trump and others have said you are the next scalia. i think it is only fair to ask you, do you disagree with any of the majority opinions that judge scalia joined in these cases? if so, which ones do you especially disagree with, and why? these have already been decided. vonnie: you have been watching the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. let's get back to house speaker paul ryan on capitol hill. rep. ryan: we are very confident it works. the president was really clear, he laid it on the lines for

everybody. we made our promise and now is the time to keep our promise. if we don't keep our promise, it will be very hard to manage this. are you doing a thank you here or are you raising your hand?-- thing to your hair or are you raising your hand? [laughter] >> [indiscernible] yeah, i disagree with that because we have a lot of freedom caucus members who are supporting this bill. we have been working with all the members on their concerns and a lot of the members' concerns have been incorporated in this process. if you look at what we have been able to add to this bill, huge conservative wins -- giving states the ability to block grant for medicaid, incentive to work requirements, preventing non-expansion states from expanding and gaming the system. this the most pro-life legislation we've had since partial-birth abortion. we made the tax cuts enacted in 2017. all of those things were requested by these members. in this day and age, in this

business, and politics, if you get 85% of what you want, that is pretty darn good could we know we cannot get 100% of what we want every time around here in this particular case because of the senate rules. we don't wonder but something in this bill that the senate is telling us is fatal to the bill being brought up in the senate. that is why we will pass the best possible legislation we can. we got it there, president helped negotiate these changes, send it over to the senate from and the senate without jeopardizing the bill can make improvements to the bill, but if we do it here, we will jeopardize the entire bill. i think people understand and respect this legislative process. i think the members will realize in the final analysis that we are getting the vast majorities of the things we think should be in this bill. at the end of the day it is a choice -- do you want to stick with the obamacare status quo, do you want to stick with the idea that we made a promise and are not going to keep it, or do we want to replace this bill with clearly a much much better law, something that makes good

on a principles and promises, and guess the country on the right track? i think in the fun -- the people in the final analysis will make the decision. the president came here knocked the ball out of the park, knocked the cover off the ball to explain to our members how it is important to unify, how we are advancing our principles and doing what we told the american people we would do. this is our chance and this is our moment. it is a big moment. i think our members are preaching what a rendezvous with destiny we have here. thank you. vonnie: you have been listening to house speaker paul ryan on capitol hill following a meeting with president trump and the house caucus. he talked about massive tax cuts come ones affected this year. he talked about it being pro-life legislation, and without jeopardizing the bill, the senate can make improvements as long as the house passes it. he says numbers in the final analysis we realize it is a choice and he believes that will make that choice. he says many freedom house members supported this

legislation could all right, let's get back to the hearing for supreme court nominee neil gorsuch at the senate judiciary committee. judge gorsuch: i would like to convey to you from the bottom of that i am a fair judge, and i think if you ask people in the 10th circuit, is he a fair judge, you will get the answer you got yesterday from both senator bennett and senator gardner and general katyal, on the same answer you got from senator salazar 10 years ago. senator, i can't guarantee you more than that, but i can promise you absolutely nothing less. sen. feinstein: ok. i have a minute and 21 seconds. let's talk chevron. that has been used thousands of times, and it really perplexes me. olympia snowe and i did something that took me 12, 13

years to get to, and that is changing the corporate fuel economy standards. andthanks to senator inouye senator stevens, they put it finally at commerce bill and it passed. so now we are on our way to 54 miles a gallon. here's the point -- we could do the rules for the first 10 years, but who knew we needed the experts to do them from that point on? so what we said in the legislation was that science would prevail. and that's still the law. it's working. the goal is -- i ever write articles that say there will be 54 miles by -- i have read articles that say there will be 54 miles by 2005 it is continues. what is wrong with that? how else could we have done it?

judge gorsuch: i'm not aware with anything wrong with it, senator. i have never suggested otherwise. -- but whatin: but usaid is the congress could not legislate -- what you have said is the congress could not legislate by leaving some of the rules of to the scientists or other professionals in departments, as i understood it, in chevron. judge gorsuch: i appreciate the opportunity to correct this misunderstanding, senator the case -- senator. the case you are referring to involves an undocumented immigrant to this country. the question was, there were two conflicting statutes. one said he could apply for immediate discretionary relief from this country from the attorney general. second said he had to wait outside the country for 10 years. we had a judicial president that said the first statute controls. that was the ruling of our court

. after that, three or four years, i can't for member exactly, the board of immigration appeals in its infinite wisdom says our interpretation is wrong. chevron, you have to undo your precedent, judicial precedent, that this man had relied upon, and he now had to wait outside the country not just 10 years, but 13 or 14, because it took them so long to make up their mind. senator, that reminded me of when charlie brown is going into kick the ball and lucy picks it up at the last second. that struck me as raising serious due process concerns, fair notice, and separation of powers concerns, when an executive bureaucracy can overturn a judicial precedent without an active congress. that is what the case is about. ,t suggested respectfully senator, that under the epa --

past judges to decide the question and left administrative agencies great deference when it comes to fact-finding. that is how i read section 706, fact-finding by scientists, biologists, chemists, experts, great deference from the courts. the only question is who decides what the law is, antenna man like mr. -- and can a man like goodyear is be able to rely on judicial precedent on the books or can he have the ball picked up? sen. feinstein: i've exceeded my time. judge gorsuch: i'm sorry. sen. grassley: i want to make clear to everybody, you do not exceed your time because i said if you ask your question before the last second is up, and you did, we would give whatever time it took for that to be done. if everybody follows that rule, i think we will be treating everybody fairly. before i call on senator hatch, i would like to enter into the record an article in the wall

street journal -- in "wall street," editorial, title for gorsuch, how would you vote -- democrats demand he declare himself on cases." "democrats have come up empty tractive to find something scandalous that no gorsuch have -- neil gorsuch has said, so they are blaming him for what he won't say. to wit, they want him to declare how he would rule in specific areas of law, questions that every supreme court nominee declines to answer." without objection, i enter that into the record. senator hatch. sen. hatch: thank you, mr. chairman. my goal in his confirmation process is to get an onerstanding or a handle your understanding of the proper role of judges in our system of government. you gave an interesting lecture

last year at case western reserve school of law about justice scalia's legacy. justice scalia, you explain, emphasized the difference between judges and legislators. legislators us that may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims about social utilities that shaped the they think- laws should be individual, but judges should do none of these things in a democratic society. i think that accurately describes justice scalia of's -- justice scalia's view. is that also your own view? judge gorsuch: senator, it is, although i have to confess, that lecture was attended by about 20 people and it has gotten a lot more attention since. sen. hatch: well, we're making sure it gets some more. in your opinions on the appeals court, you take great care to identified what issues the court may or may not address. in one opinion last year, for example, used phrases such as,

"it is not our job," and "it is something not our business." what is an appellate court's job, interview? -- in your view? judge gorsuch: it is a limited but vital role in our separated powers. a judge is there to make sure poor or rich,son, gets equaleek, protection in the locket it is chiseled -- in the law. it is chiseled in the supreme e,urt entrance in marbl although i believe the lincoln memorial is made of colorado marble. that is a promise that every person is protected by our laws equally. in all of human history that made it the most radical promise in all of law.

what it means to me is that when i sit on the bench, and someone comes to argue before me, i treat each one of them equally. they don't come as rich or poor, big guy or little guy. they come as a person. and i put my ego aside when i put on that robe and i open my mind and i open my heart and i listen. that theirmy clerks very first and most important job is to tell me i am wrong, and to persuade me i am wrong, as i read the grease and listen to the arguments.--0read the briefs and listen to the arguments if they managed to do that, i tell them to persuade me i'm wrong again. i want to leave no stone unturned. i have one client, that is the law. it is a great joy and a great

privilege and a daunting response ability to come in every day and try to get it right. then i listened to the organs of the lawyers. i don't treat them as cat's paw s. they are not there to be toyed with. asreat them, i hope, always respected colleagues, who live with the arguments, study the cases, know the facts far better than i do. i might actually learn something from them. i go in with the questions i actually have that i want answered. then i sit and this to my colleagues after that. senator hatch, i cannot tell you how many times on the 10th circuit i have got to that whole process and i go to conference and i think i know my mind, and that one of my colleagues -- yesterday, often the 1 -- there are plenty of others -- they say something absolutely brilliant that changes my mind. and that is the judicial process, and that is the role i see for the appellate judge. sen. hatch: thank you. that is a very good explanation.

we held the confirmation hearing for justice sonia sotomayor or in 2009 and senator charles schumer, now the minority leader, was a member of this committee, and praise to the nominee in this way. "judge sotomayor puts the rule of law above everything else. judge sotomayor has hewed carefully to the text of statutes even when doing so results in rulings that go against so-called synthetic litigants." do you agree with senator schumer that your duty as a judge is to follow the law even when it requires running against synthetic lit -- sympathetic litigants? judge gorsuch: yes, senator. i caps on you i go home and take off the robe, i'm not -- i can't tell you when i go home and take off the robe i'm not a human being and don't think about those cases could do my job is to apply the law in each and every case without respect

to persons. that is my oath. there is not every law in the book i love, you love. i'm sure of that. my job isn't to write the laws, it is to apply the laws. i tried to do that, and that is enough for a days work and enough for a life's work. in my opening remarks yesterday i mentioned in the letter we received from dozens of your peers at harvard law school. i asked consent that this letter be included in the record at this point. sen. grassley: without objection it will be included. sen. hatch: the signers represented many different faiths and lifestyles and views. they all support strongly your nomination. the letter said that you personify a disinterested philosophy that respects judicial modesty, combined with compassionate appreciation of the lives impacted by your decision. how can you do both?

senator, i'm just a person. i remember how hard it is to be a lawyer. i remember what it was like to represent clients who have problems. told my kids when they asked me what my job was when i was young , it is to help people with their problems. and as a judge, i have to resolve their problems. one of the hard things about being a judge is that somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. you may cap the people and happy 100% of the time. that it -- you make half the people unhappy 100% of the time that is the job description. you have to believe you are part of something bigger than yourself. i believe in the rule of law in this country and that an independent judiciary is one of the keys to it, and i feel it has been a calling to be part of

it. and an honor. well, the fourth amendment protects the right to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." it was written in the late 18th when told by law enforcement to investigate crime and monitor suspects radically different than they are today. in your view, how should a judge approach interpreting and applying constitutional provisions like the fourth amendment in cases where the methods atand/or issue were obviously not even imagined by the founders? judge gorsuch: may offer an example, senator, i think would be helpful? sen. hatch: sure. judge gorsuch: i take united recent caseones, before the supreme court, involving whether police officers might attach a gps

tracking device to a car. modern technology. how do you apply the original constitution, written 200 years ago, to that? and the court went back and looked at the law 200 years ago. and one of the things that found was that attaching something to someone else's property is a trespass to chattel is common-law, and would be considered a search. and the court held that if that is a trespass 200 years ago, it theto be today, though technology is obviously different. so the technology changes, but the principles don't. and it can't be the case that the united states constitution is any less protective of the people's liberties today than it was the day it was drafted. sen. hatch: well, you authored case that in a 2008

apply principles from earlier cases involving photography, relatively old technology, to determine the intellectual property protections for digital and how, a new medium should judges approach questions of intellectual property in cases that involve new technologies or applications of old technologies? should they confine themselves to analogous technologies, or may judges create new doctrines and case law that they believe better addresses that changing technological landscape? well, senator, i think it is a similar sort of question. we look back, we find what the law was at the time, the original understanding, if you will, and we make analogies to our current circumstance. we judges love analogies. we work with analogies. that is how lawmaking through the judicial process happens. that is proper judicial

decision-making. it is very different thing if you want to create a revolution in the area and change the law dramatically. that is for this body to do. it is for judges to interpret the law as best they can from the original understanding to current circumstances, applied to current circumstances. so that is exactly what we get. and looked at old case law having to do with copyright and applied it to digital media. same principles from the beginning of the copyright act, just applied to a new medium. sen. hatch: several of your writings are on the chevron doctrine. it's been raised here already. most americans probably wonder why a supreme court nominee would talk about a gas station, the concept of chevron is very straightforward. to defer to judges an agency's interpretation of the law. allowsct, this deference

unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to rewrite the law. any middle school are, however, should be able to see how chevron is inconsistent with the basic duty of judges under the constitution. aw, as you probably know, i'm chevron skeptic, and of lead the fight to overturn this decision legislatively with my separation of powers act. i introduced this bill last congress with the support of several colleagues on this committee, and will soon reintroduce it. i chose its title for a reason. re-examining chevron is not about being anti- or pro-regulation. rather, it is about restoring the constitutional allocation of powers between the three branches. it is about maintaining fidelity to the laws passed by congress and the exact bounds of authority granted to regulatory

agencies. and it is about ensuring that the bureaucracy abides by the law no matter what his policy goals, liberal or conservative. judge, do you agree to is nothing extreme or inherently ideological when the supreme court said in marbury versus madison that "it is incredibly the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"? judge gorsuch: senator, marbury v madison is the cornerstone of the law in this country. i don't know anybody who wants to go back and reconsider that. i hope not. sen. hatch: i feel the same way. last week "the new york times" reported that the primary line of attack against you is that you are "no friend of the little guy." we have had that come up time and again in these proceedings in the last couple of days. harvard law school professor noah feldman, who does call

himself a liberal, wrote an opinion piece on the subject that appeared last week on bloomberg.com. he opens this way, "i don't know who decided that the democratic ricky of -- democratic critique of supreme court nominee judge neil gorsuch would be that he doesn't side with the little guy . it's a truly terrible idea." mr. chairman, asked that this column b placed in the record. sen. grassley: without objection, so ordered. sen. hatch: some have questioned whether you have a record of objectivity. in critical, they question whether you would stand up to the current president if he were to exceed his authority under laws astitution and congress has enacted. i asked for consent to place in the record an essay i wrote that sblog.com.n scotu sen. grassley: sen. feinstein

without objection -- sen. grassley: without objection, so ordered. sen. hatch: how would you respond to that criticism? judge gorsuch: a good judge does not give a whit about politics or the political applications of his or her decision. bust ofast everyday a byron white in my courthouse. my courthouse is named for byron white. and when i do that, i think about his absolute determination just to get it right no matter where it took him. "it's a job. you do your very best and you go home." that is how i approach things. if you look at my record, senator, respectfully, i think it demonstrates that could according to my law clerks, again, when i do dissent, which is very rarely, i do so in about

equal numbers between judges who happen to be appointed by democrat presidents and who happen to be appointed by republican presidents. i hate to even use those words, because they are all just to me judges. i don't think of them that way. my decisions have always been independent regardless of who i'm agreeing or disagreeing with, and if i ruled against the government, my goodness, asked the u.s. attorney's office in colorado. i give them a pretty hard time. i make them square their corners, senator hatch, all right? if you want some examples, i point to kruger, ackerman, recent fourth amendment cases ruling for the accused, the least amongst us, against the government. sen. hatch: in 2005, before being appointed to the appeals

court, you wrote an op-ed piece for "national review" in which he criticized the reliance on the courts by litigants seeking to achieve policy results that they could not achieve through the regular political process. not that long ago, there was a consensus that courts are not the appropriate place to make policy. now you are resized for that same common sense -- you are criticized for that same commonsense idea. i want to give you a chance to respond. how does rely on quotes to make policy undermine democracy and the agency of the federal judiciary? judge gorsuch: well, again, it goes to our separation of powers. judges would make the report legislators -- would make a very poor legislators. we are not equipped for it. we are not responsive to the people. you can't get rid of us. you are stuck with us. and we don't have the opportunities to talk to people, to have hearings like this one

in places like this. for permitted 4 law clerks one year at a time. right out of law school. kind of an evanescent crowd. replenishes itself every year. now, if you were to make laws, i don't think you would design a letem where you would three older people with 4 young law clerks straight out of law school legislate for a country of 320 million. that is not how anybody would design the railroad. those are some of the problems i see, senator. sen. hatch: thank you -- judge gorsuch: with all respect to my law clerks. i love them very much. they are like family. but they are not the same as your staff and the investigative powers you have. sen. hatch: they are lucky to be with you is all i can say. in that "national review" piece, you pointed out liberal policies

lawyers have sought to achieve through litigation could some of your critics have tried to turn this into one of those gotcha moments, claiming that your real claiming your real qualm was what those policies that were liberal, not that they were achieved through litigation. again i want to give you a chance to respond. judge gorsuch: i would say in that article -- i would say couple things about it. first, as i pointed out and i believe, the court's a very important place for the vindication of civil rights and for minorities. it's a place where unpopular voices get heard the same as popular voices. in a democracy and the legislature, majorities when. in. that is not the case in courys. the best arguments prevail.

the second thing i would point out is the one thing we like as judges to make good policy decisions as legislators is the ability to compromise. these bodies, legislative bodies, as you can put together a compromise. judges -- somebody has to win, some of the has to lose. it's not a great place to compromise and we are not well equipped to do your work. at the same time, i did criticize and i pointed out a column by a liberal columnist, a self identified liberal columnist, and i agreed with him that his side has spent too much time in court instead of the legislature. i can report to you from having lived longer as i did report to you in 2006 that the problem lies on both sides of the aisle,

that i see lots of people who resort to court perhaps more quickly than perhaps they should. sen. hatch: some liberal organizations are claiming that in private practice -- vonnie: you have been watching live confirmation coverage for neil gorsuch. you can continue to fall the hearing at bloomberg tv . from new york, i am vonnie quinn. mark: i mark barton and this is "bloomberg markets." let's get more on the neil gorsuch hearing. joining us now is greg store. does the hearing that we've listened to so far, does it put to bed concerns that neil gorsuch won't be a fair, independent judge? greg: i don't think it will put to bed democratic concerns about him. certainly not their contention that he tends to side with the big guy, the powerful institutions, and not the little guy.

he did push back against that notion emma but they're going to be done greg who -- democrats who are concerned about which way the supreme court will had with neil gorsuch on it. vonnie: compared to previous nominees, he says it's very important to look at precedent and take it as gospel. how did he do in terms of nominee precedent? greg: there's a little bit of a script for these things and he gets to go back to the testimony of previous nominees and see what they said. in terms of president, he said every time he was asked about a case, whether it was gun rights or abortion rights or nothing else, he said that as a president of the court and it is entitled to respect as a president of the court, but that doesn't necessarily mean he won't vote to overturn it. he laid out some of the factors that he, like other supreme court justices, decide whether to overturn a president. he didn't tie his hands from doing that. vonnie: greg, is it possible to tell from testimony like this how a judge would come down

should he be appointed to the court or do we know more from his previous rulings and decisions? greg: the previous rulings are probably the biggest indicator. there's is every indication that he will be judged, for the most was --ike justice scalia conservative, viewing the constitution in accordance with the words and original meaning. that will mean that he is not going to expand abortion rights, for example. how quickly he might move to restrict them or overrule roe v. wade is an open question. we do have an indication that he is generally a conservative judge and one that republicans are going to be happy with. mark: greg, he left behind a part at the end of day one. how hard is it going to be to stop this nomination if you are a democrat looking to do so? greg: is going to be very hard. republicans have 52 votes in the senate.

it takes 60 votes to get a supreme court nomination to the floor for a vote, but there's an option dubbed the nuclear option that lets republicans get around that and eliminate the 60 vote requirement. they signaled they are willing to do that if they have to. even if every democrat says they will not support neil gorsuch, republicans have a way to get him on this up in court. the super court. vonnie: we exit got decisions from the supreme court, one of which was about temporary appointments. they now have been curve. what does that mean for the presidency in the cabinet? this has to do with is whether you can simultaneously nominate someone for position and have them serving in a temporary capacity filling that position. what the spring court said is generally no, you can't have them do both of those things. calls intooes is question a whole bunch of rulings across the government that have been made by temporary

officers. it will give, say somebody who is subjected to epa rulings who disagrees with it, and my give them a new avenue -- it might give them a new avenue to say that somebody involved in that decision was not properly serving that capacity and therefore the decision should be overturned. vonnie: greg stohr, thank you. you can continue to follow the neil gorsuch hearing at bloomberg tv and on bloomberg.com. mark: where equities are trading right now, we are 90 minutes away from the tuesday session. ,e were up for the eighth day the highest level since december 2015. we are down a third of 1% led by defenses, all but three industry groups trading lower today. some corporate news to tell you about. industries preparing a new bid for axel novell. exec details for the new proposal unclear.

zo rejected the takeover bid on march 9 where they see three euros per share was substantially undervaluing the company. shares of akzo up by 3%. look at that breaking 10 wait against the dollar today, the highest level since november last year. a poll showing that the the independent candidate emerged as the most convincing of the five contenders international tv presidential ahead ofst night of he marine le pen, two polls giving him the win as the rookie candidate, stopping le pen from landing this knockout punch. the euro has risen 2.2% since that ecb meeting. have said to consider this question of raising rates before the bond buying program.

the euro climbing to 115 and six months and 120 and 12 months. this is the spread, the difference in yields between the french and german 10 year yields. it is a narrowing today to 63 basis points. it widens the most in four years. a month ago today to 79 basis points. we have come down since then as concerns ebb that le pen will be the victor in the french president election. still come a julie, there's a month ago. has how does it look over there? julie: it is looking like a selloff and it is steepening as the morning is going on. the attention in washington has been on the gorsuch hearings. this has been focused on the selloff in equities. trading volume was the lowest that it had been all year. today it is up by more than 10% versus and 20 day average as we see the selloff. the other thing about the selloff is that that is not what

happened when the markets opened. look at the as of yet young session. we opened up higher and then took a tumble lower after 10:00. again, that has been accelerating even as the morning has gone on. take a look at the bloomberg and the imap. what is pulling stocks lower? financials a big part of it today. financials of the most heavily weighted group and s&p 500. down 1.60%. industrials falling steeply. the only group up right now is the utility group. i want to take a look. you were looking at the spread between the french and german yield. i'm looking at the five and 30 here in the u.s.. as we continue to see, and this goes back to the end of 2015, we continue to see the yield curve flattening. this is bad news for the banks. if you make your money on the differential between money that you are borrowing money you are lending out and those two

numbers are kind of flattening, that is not good news for you. finally want to take a look at the transports. the dow jones transportation average falling below its 100 day moving average today, down 1.6%. avis, budget, and car rental companies falling after allied financial saying the used car market was week. we have national logistics company and southwest airlines falling as well. vonnie: they seem to have gone there separate directions a little bit. let's check in on the bloomberg first word news. courtney donohoe is here with more. courtney: president trump has a warning for house republicans -- passed a bill to replace the affordable care act or risk losing your seat next year's election. the president sounded more upbeat after leaving a meeting with lawmakers at the capital. courtney: i think we're going to get a winter vote. we are going to have a winter ner vote with terrific people that want at cement his

health care plan. that is what we have. i think we will get the votes. courtney: republican leaders have made several changes to the bill, including limits on medicaid enrollment and an accelerated phaseout of some taxes. u.s. trade representative nominee robert like kaiser one of the united states to pursue stronger tradewinds with taiwan. they said china has manipulated its currency. a former republican irish commander who negotiated peace in northern ireland has died. mcginnis denied allegations that he took part in terrorist activities during the time known as the troubles. he later became chief negotiator for the ira political arm. he eventually became the deputy leader of northern ireland power-sharing government. sayout of five americans they will need a million dollars or more to retire comfortably. that is according to a survey.

the organization has research showing that 10% of people with 401(k) retirement plans have at least $200,000 stashed away. global news 24 hours a day howard by more than 2600 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries, i'm courtney donohoe. this is bloomberg. vonnie: much more on health care coming up as we move toward a vote in the house thursday. an update from washington next. this is bloomberg. ♪

mark: live from london, i mark barton. vonnie: from bloomberg world headquarters in new york, i vonnie quinn. time for the latest bloomberg business flash, a look at the

latest business stories in the news right now. u.s. and new york regulators are expected to find deutsche bank for its conduct in the foreign exchange market according to a person familiar with the matter. deutsche bank is the largest lender and has agreed to settle the currency case. the justice department close the kremlin messias without filing charges. lockheed martin's new report with president trump is about to get its first test. the defense contractor has negotiated that had gone order yet for the f-35 fighter. late last year, the president criticized the f-35 cost is out of control. later, he claimed credit for saving millions of dollars on an $8 billion contract for the plane and called the jet fantastic. apple has unveiled the cheapest version of the ipad yet. this one has a 9.7 inch screen with a brighter display and starts at $329. the mark spenc more extensive vn offers cellular service. the apple is offering us chinese red iphone 7. sales of the device will go to

fight aids. that is your bloomberg business flash for this hour. politics, doesn't trump warning house republicans in th a closed door meeting that they could lose their seats in the midterm if they do not pass a bill to replace obamacare. anna is in washington with the latest the changes came out late last night. how many republican minds do these changes change? anna: they were help changes for some conservatives and also for some moderates. probably not enough to pass the house right now, at least that is what the very conservative freedom caucus tells us. they have about 40 members. they say they have the votes to still block the bill. we have not heard any of them yet say that having donald trump on the hill this morning has

changed their mind yet either. vonnie: we had paul ryan earlier with the news availability saying, you choose at this point. this is the most conservative health care legislation there .as been coul i it is pro-life and lowering taxes and the senate could make the changes. would that be enough to scare members into voting yes, members who say their constituents aren't happy? anna: i don't know if it will scare them into voting yes. the members who are scared into voting no are afraid of giving the senate so much power. there is sort of a pot of money in the changes made last night that would go to allow the senate some flexibility to maybe raise the amount of tax credits for older, poor americans. there are conservative members who don't love just giving the senate so much leeway to kind of change the bill in any way they might want to. mark: anna, president trump

warning republicans in that closed-door meeting that many could lose their seats if they don't vote for this on thursday. i suppose many are worried that they could lose their seats if they do vote for it. has trump's threat turned the tide in any way, do you think? anna: not that i've seen yet. i saw that there were some , moents from a republican brooks, who said what you just said. opposite of trump, we think that voting for this could actually make republicans lose the majority. they are hearing from their constituents and they are looking at the polls. they don't exactly see a lot of popularity out there for this bill or the president right now. mark: there is nonpartisan analysis of this before thursday from the nonpartisan cbo. how influential might that be? anna: that will be interesting.

there are some changes that they made to medicaid. but one of those being the option for states to implement and work requirement for able-bodied adults that are using the program. other changes that could sort of limit enrollment in that state-federal program. people are going to be watching the number very closely again for what the coverage numbers are, how many are going to be uninsured with these changes made. if that number goes up -- it was 24 million before the changes ine made and more uninsured 2026 -- if that number goes up, that could give them a lot of problems. vonnie: anna, if it doesn't pass, what then? anna: if it doesn't pass, then i think paul ryan and donald trump sort of have to go back to the drawing board. they will have the argument to make that they tried and they couldn't get it through, so bring all of your ideas.

tell us how we can do this. right now, the way that they do it, it has to start in the house the way they are crafting this legislation, they way they want to pass it. they have to find a way to get it through the house and make everybody happy. vonnie: anna, thank you for that. mark: still ahead, the pound getting a little boost today to u.k. inflation data. we will get the inflation get tont as the bank it' the inflation target. this is bloomberg. ♪

vonnie: in new york, i vonnie quinn . mark: i mark barton and this is "bloomberg markets." i want to focus on data showing inflation more than forecast in february, breaking through the

ceiling, the bank of england's target. joining me now is u.k. economist dan hansen. headline inflation, core above 2%.both at how high does ago go and how eob be?should that you'll be dan: pretty worried. we don't see inflation going until mid-2019. at the moment, this appears to be driven all by the drop in the pound. there is externally driven inflation and over the medium-term that should wash out with a year-over-year figures. domestically generated inflation appears to be muted still. that gives the bank space to keep their current policy discretion. mark: there is one member from last week who stands out. we talked about it last week.

does this give ammunition to those others who seemed to be just a pace behind kristin forbes and voting for hike? dan: mccafferty for example might look at this. in this print, there was a bit for the hawks and a bit for the doves. for the hawks, you have the headline number. for the doves, if you look in the details, services inflation, which is actually within this of domesticst gauge regenerator inflation remains range found at 2-3%. all the action has been on the good side, which is really sensitive for the exchange rate. that is what you are seeing pushing inflation higher here. mark: what sort of squeeze are we going to see on spending if there is evidence of it already if inflation keeps rising and wages move in the opposite direction? that's the sort of key question right now, isn't it? dan: up until now the real

reason the u.k. economy has weathered the brexit storm is because of the british consumer. if you look at the wage data last week, regular pay is running at 2.3%. that is three months to january. inflation is running at 2.3%. essentially real wages much stagnating right now. we think that consumer spending slow in line with real wage growth. you need a sharp slowdown in consumer spending over the coming year and beyond. that is likely to mean that the data begins the sour a little bit and headline growth begins to slow. mark: you are suggesting first data2019 looking at nbc today. then the pricing 25 basis points hike august 2018. before today, it was a 67% chance. now it's a 100% chance of 25 basis points. you think that is too bullish. of: i do and that's account

the fact that i said the data is likely sour on the real economy. the frack of the british consumers going to have the wind taken out of it sales. investment is weaker to be otherwise than it would've been and we are looking to get partial offset from that trade in the drop in the pound. all in all, you get headline growth slowing. in onthanks for setting what has been quite a historic day. bloomberg intelligence u.k. economist dan hansen. vonnie: we are continuing to monitor the supreme court nomination hearing for neil gorsuch on capitol hill, day to before the senate judiciary committee. you can follow along by running the function tv . this is bloomberg. ♪

mark: live from london, this is "bloomberg markets." i am mark barton. vonnie: in new york, i am vonnie quinn. let's check in the bloomberg first word news.

courtney donohoe has more. courtney: supreme court nominee neil gorsuch says he will not give his views on roe versus wade or any other sipping court decision during his confirmation hearing. asked by chuck grassley to discuss the case that legalized abortion could .> 1973e v. wade decided in by the president of the united states supreme court has been reaffirmed. considerations are important their and other factors that go into analyzing president have to be considered. it is the president of the united states up in court. inwas reaffirmed in kc 1992 and other cases. courtney: you can watch the hearing on bloomberg tv and on bloomberg.com. the u.s. is thinking about banning electronic devices on flights. it is and at travelers coming

from police and north africa. they are going to have the store devices larger than mobile phones and their checked baggage. the bbc says the u.k. vance may be somewhat different. eu make yous the trimester theresa may waiting could they may wait until april 6 two agree on the line for negotiating positions. the meeting will happen april 29 and that will be into the two-week bargaining period. bak apologized to the korean people and apologized to investigators. she had immunity while under prosecution by the office. global news 20 for hours a day powered by more than 2600 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries, this is bloomberg. mark: jeffries reporting returns

of profit in the first quarter. as banks results often seen a bellwether for the performance of the large investment banks. if that is the case, could be a good quarter to come. jimmy is now is laura keller. of city andes jpmorgan, they were cautious in recent months. does jeffries tele's it is going to be a blowout quarter for the big boys yet to report? laura: yes, exactly, the bellwether of wall street. citi and jpmorgan were forecasting a modest uptick that was a sad quarter for everyone. jeffries did quite well in the quarter, six times better on trading, which is a great number, but they did not always portend that kind of right for other banks because jeffries business is linked to just parts of theertain market like high-yield securities, their bread-and-butter. it doesn't mean that we will see

that six time uptake at the bigger banks, but we should see a very nice rise and perhaps more than from the other banks we have talked about. mark: is that why jeffries was maybe burned more badly than its peers at the start of 2016? laura: exactly, mark. they took a lot more risky positions than some of these other banks did. what jeffries got hurt with work energies at that time and trades and distract debt. they had a $100 million loss by the end of the year. this didn't happen at banks that were trading more macro and things like that that offset other sectors that jeffries got hurt on. vonnie: what can we tell about staffing and expenses? i know there are expenses excluding interest of 22% even though jeffries lost jobs. is that saying the ones who are better talented are getting paid more? laura: that is something the banks like to hit on. if expenses rise, you guys have

to keep in mind that we have to pay some of our bankers and traders more because they made more money. that is part of it and why some of the extent is are rising even though you are seeing some of the actual full numbers for employees go down. you've got to pay people better when they make more money. vonnie: interest expense was also up 10% over the last year. is this something we will see at all the banks? laura: jeffries has been borrowing more and they have had a bond issuance recently, so that is more of their story than anywhere else. wells fargo has also been borrowing recently. we may see interest expenses uptick there, but not so much from the banks from the expectations that i've seen. mark: shares in its parent have done well. they are up by 40%. jeffries parent reflecting the upside we have seen in bank shares. the environment has continued, hasn't it? this beneficial trading environment with the fed hiking rates post trump, it has

continued into the new year, which begs the question -- how long can it continue? laura: exactly. how long can it continue? so much of this is really what people have expected, baking in the better tax rates and interest rates and most things in our coverage do benefit whenever there is some kind of hike. we've had to in the last four months. that is great for that, but if we don't have additional hikes and a growth story, we don't have a strategy on how to grow businesses and maybe some of these things are little bit overpriced. vonnie: very quickly on high-yield, it's been a phenomenal couple of years for high-yield and the party didn't end in the last quarter. when does it end? laura: high-yield in particular are the baby. they seek to borrow whenever they know interest rates are coming. they never really pay it off. they just keep rolling. i don't know if that would change necessarily. he sort of hang on as long as you can until you get distressed

or pass less debt. vonnie: deutsche bank set to be facing fines over currency trades but did not face any criminal charges at the end of that investigation. the fines are another matter. just another bad day for deutsche bank, right? laura: exactly. some of these large banks that do a lot of trading especially in currencies, you see a lot of these fines coming to bear on them. they sort of pop up whenever. regulators have these years long probes and you get the fines in the settlements from some of them whenever they pop up. vonnie: laura keller, baking reporter for bloomberg news, thank you. mark: coming up, bmws chief executive was among the many business leaders to a company germany's angela merkel with her first visit with president trump. his take on the meeting next. plus -- vonnie: we are continuing to monitor the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee neil gorsuch on capitol hill. he is appearing before the

senate judiciary committee and it is day two. you can follow the hearing by running the bloomberg tv function. this is bloomberg. ♪

vonnie: you are watching bloomberg. i am vonnie quinn. barton.mark this is your global business report. here's what we are following today. brexit being pushed back to april 29. the announcement will cut into the uk's to your bargaining period. vonnie: chevron says it will stop developing natural gas in western australia after an $88 billion spending spree. the reason is falling energy

prices. mark: in today's quick take, we take a look at why the u.s. supreme court's approval rating has been plunging. the european union is signaling it intends to keep british prime minister theresa may waiting. leaders have delayed a meeting and canceled plans to hold an additional 13 weeks later. eu leaders want the british government it must have realistic expectations for the negotiations. article 50 has never before been triggered. mark: a second takeover bid for european coding company xo novell. it rejected ppg's $22 billion offer earlier this month and said that they substantially undervalued the company. chevron has signaled that it is ending new major liquefying natural gas project in western australia and it is unlikely to expand its two

there. chevron will now try to boost returns from its as the lng supply get has sharply reduced revenue. the federal reserve says u.s. commercial real estate is extensive, but the world's largest money manager says it is time to buy. black rock says properties can deliver yields a 3.5%. the firm says the real estate recovery has room to run because of reflation and resilient rental yields. vonnie: time now for a bloomberg quick take, where we provide context and background on issues of interest. today we are looking at the u.s. supreme court and why it's popularity has been slipping. >> u.s. supreme court justices are supposed to be protected from the pressure of election cycles and political divisions. but in recent years, some decisions by the highest court in the land have become more polarized and its approval rating is sliding.

a year-long vacancy on the court highlighted this divide. so here's the situation. in the last year of his presidency, barack obama nominated federal appeals court judgment regarding want to the supreme court to replace justice antonin scalia, who died in february 2016, but republican leaders broke with long-standing tradition and refused to hold confirmation hearings for judge garland. >> i nominated judge merit garland to the spring court more the spring court more than three month ago but most repugnant have refused to meet with him. >> in this bold move come the gop was betting the republican president would win back the white house. and there that paid off. >> i donald j. trump do solemnly swear. >> donald trump nominated neil gorsuch of the 10th circuit court of appeals in denver. if the conservative gorsuch is confirmed, the court could keep leaning to the right for an entire generation.

republicans have controlled the court since 1969, leading to ontroversial 5-4 decisions the right to own guns and limited class-action lawsuits. the supreme court has the power to shift the nation's political direction. president can influence the nation long after terms and. that's why residents have selected justices whose convictions aren't likely to shift. >> i'm so painful tonight for my family, my friends, and my faith. >> here's the argument. were once major rulings the product of unanimous votes, the number of important decisions that rest on a 5-4 split has been rising. chief justice john roberts this can undermine the courts legitimacy as an institution that transcends politics. then figur there's the divers of the issue -- divers the issue. the court's makeup has lacked behind the changing demographics.

have the justices are still white men. there is no recourse when judges appear to violate ethical standards or hear cases that have conflict of interest. some reformers believed that one solution is term limits for justices. in a 2015 poll, americans favored a 10 year term limit, but mandatory term limits would probably require a constitutional amendment, a high bar to clear. until there's more compromise in washington, change things unlikely, and the highest court in the land could continue to face divisions and challenges to its public approval. can read more about the supreme court and all of our quick takes on the bloomberg. had to bloomberg.com for more stories. mark: last friday, president trump met with german chancellor angela merkel with the white house. part of that discussion included workplace issues on skills, trading, and gender equality.

were bmwse attending chief executive harold kreuter. we caught up with him today discussed the nature of that meeting. >> the core context of the meeting was that we talked about education, education and training, further education. we made the proposal that because there are six companies involved, u.s. companies, german companies, we would like to push the education training issue further down the road so that more companies can participate. we might share best practices in this one to create better jobs and that will create higher skilled people in our plants. >> a couple years ago, did you ever think that the threat of global trade would come up in this way? >> maybe not as experienced by today, but our world has been very volatile in the last years always. now it's at a different speed, but we are very flexible with our operations and our

production. are number one item on these days when everything is quite volatile. the world is changing fast and that is also because we have the technology jump in our industry. mark: harold kruger, chief executive of bmw. person of the meeting will join bloomberg television at 2:30 p.m. in new york and 6:30 p.m. london. vonnie: coming up, global airlines are facing regulations from the u.s. and president trump. we will tell you what the business traveler needs to know and how the c suite is reacting. also, u.s. markets suffering their biggest losses of the year. this is bloomberg. ♪

vonnie: in new york, i am vonnie

quinn. mark: live from london, this is "bloomberg markets." i mark barton. time for the bloomberg business flash, a look at some of the biggest business stories in the news right now. the second largest homebuilder in the u.s. reporting better-than-expected earnings. the company grinding away at buyer confidence. job growth has been picking up in the construction of new homes rose in february by the most since october 2007. new york fed president william dudley says the wells fargo scandal shows of the banking industry still has work to do on improving its culture. wells fargo employees may have opened more than 2 million deposits and credit card accounts without customer permission. there was a serious gap between the banks professed value and the incentives it used. the largest real estate brokers in the u.k. are cutting back demand for housing, hitting a

six-month low in february. traditional brokers are being undercut on fees by online companies. countrywide closing 200 branches last year. 44% since they vote on brexit. latest bloomberg is this flash. -- business flash. vonnie: lots going on in the trading session on wall street today. there i say it is a selloff? abigail doolittle is here to display more. abigail: it is a selloff. in 2017, the&p 500 losses for both the dow and s&p 500, these are the most since october 11 last year. really more of a pullback and a selloff. vincent told our team just moments ago that what could be --ind this is our creasing increasing thoughts of the health care bill will not be

passed on thursday. if it stumbles, it could push potential fiscal stimulus out to 2018. reflation the whole trade that investors are hoping for around the trump administration. the losses are actually worse for some of the leading indexes. that includes the russell 2000, the dow transports, along with the biotech index. the russell 2000 down nearly 2% right now. this is the index probably most associated with the trump trade, really leaving the declines for u.s. stocks today. asset classes,s vincent makes the point that it is confirmed across the asset classes. we see that it is clearly a risk off day. we had a haven bond rally. we had the yen higher against the dollar. we have gold higher and we have this gauge surging by 11%. a big risk off day here. and for multiple days. the yen is up five days in a row. lots of strategists have been

calling for this. we happened to the bloomberg and take a look at g #btv 6648. this chart comes from asbury research. blue is the s&p 500 near the all-time highs and white is a high yield spread to treasuries. john cozart was making the point that when it goes lower, that tells us risk on and is not a load concerns out there. as it has been creeping higher about that 21 day moving average, it really suggests we are going to see a pullback. he calls high-yield in fact "a time bomb" for stocks. we could see a pullback and maybe perhaps a correction. very quickly the airlines. we take a look at a make an alliance -- and mark and airlines, delta, united, jetblue. it may be possible that some of this has to do with the ban relative to laptops and the middle east. however, george ferguson told our team that is not the case. most of the declines in the u.s. base, especially jetblue and alaska airlines, they are leaving the declines.

it is really a risk off day. a good day to monitor here after relative calm for a few days. vonnie: let's get more on the ban that abigail was referencing from middle eastern airlines that bars passengers from carrying large electronic vices on u.s. bound flights. our managing editor joins us now from our dubai bureau. how are the airlines responding so far? >> the airlines generally are saying if these are the rules, they of course will abide by them. they have to they don't really have a choice but to abide by them. mark: who is affected and who is going to be hit the hardest? i think it is mainly the airports that are acting as international hubs, especially the airports with the three gulf carriers -- dubai, abu dhabi, and a heart.

har.o i think turkish airlines will be hard-hit as well. they will probably not welcome this as they are already seeing the impact of a job in tourism after some of the attacks that we have seen there. in the gulf, they were already facing some headwinds with the decline in some of the top end of their business. the business class traveler going through these major hubs and transit hubs. i think there might be some concern that this could dampen some of that top end travel , the business traveler everybody is targeting could i think it is going to be very hard to judge how much the impact will be, how big the impact will be. vonnie: what is the spirit of this ban? why enforce it and put into place in the first place?

riad: well, we don't really know. used isse that was evaluated intelligence. toy referred to some attempt smuggle bombs onto airplanes in electronic devices. it seems to be aimed at that. they are stating basically security concerns. we are seeing some reports out of the u.k. now that maybe the u.k. may follow in all of this. ishink what they are saying that it's a security concern. why now? was there any specific threat? that's unclear. the threatit rain in of terrorist activities? have we had any early views on this? riad: no. again, they haven't even started the va ban yet.

airlines have 96 hours to put the measures in place. they have a lot to do to put it in place, so i think it is going to make any sort of judgment on whether this is going to rain in the terrorist threat. hamade inanks to riad our dubai bureau. the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee neil gorsuch continues on capitol hill. he is taking questions from the members of the senate judiciary committee. you can follow the hearing on your bloomberg at tv . it is also streaming online. this is bloomberg. ♪

mark: it is called :00 p.m. in new york and midnight and hong kong. 80 minutes left in the trading day. from london, i am mark barton. vonnie: in new york, i am vonnie quinn. this is the european close on

"bloomberg markets." ♪ mark: we are going to take you from new york to london in the next hour, covering 's stories ou stories out of san fo and paris. a european politics, the euro is climbing today as concern over the french election uses thanks to this man, emmanuel macron's debate performance. the eu sets the date of april 29 for a brexit summit. vonnie: here in the u.s., senators are quizzing supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. he vows to uphold the law and deflected comment on controversial cases. fines inbank is facing the united states for its conduct in the foreign exchange market. has deutsche bank put its legal issues to rest yet? mark: