he nominated chief judge merrick garland. but the leader of the senate republicans, majority leader mcconnell, announced that for the first time -- for the first time in the 230-year history of the senate he would refuse the president's nominee a hearing and a vote. senator mcconnell said he would refuse to even meet with judge garland. it was a transparent political decision made by the republican leader in the hopes a republican would be elected president and fill the vacancy and it was part of a broader republican political strategy to influence if not capture the judicial branch of government at every level of the court system. not only did the senate republicans keep a supreme court seat vacant for over a year, they turned the senate executive calendar into a nomination obituary column for 30 other judicial nominees who'd been reported out of the judiciary committee with bipartisan support. they were hoping a republican president would fill all of those seats and they were prepared to leave them vacant for a year or more

so when president obama nominated judge merrick garland to the supreme court in the heat of the 2016 presidential election, i -- when he was nominated, i understand the frustration of those on the other side of the aisle over the fate of that nomination. i met judge garland. he is a good man and a good judge. but the decision by the majority not to take up judge garland's nomination was not inconsistent with the long-standing practice of filling supreme court vacancies after elections. this brings us today to why i'm supporting -- confirming judge gorsuch to the supreme court. there is no question about the appropriateness of confirming supreme court nominees during the first years of a president's term let alone the first three months. in fact, there is absolutely no justification for filibustering a highly qualified supreme court nominee put forward by the president that was just elected. that is just unprecedented. there was an attempt to use this tactic in 2006 with justice samuel alito's nomination to the supreme court, but he garnered sufficient bipartisan support so that clotu

and that was merrick garland. february 2016 with justice scalia's death, a nominee submitted to us by president obama acknowledged to be mainstream, acknowledged to be well qualified, acknowledged to be a consensus nominee, and he got the ultimate filibuster. no -- most members of the republicans in the senate wouldn't meet with him. he didn't have a committee hearing, didn't have a committee vote, didn't have a floor vote. that was the ultimate filibuster. it was wrong, particularly when we know that he would have received 60 votes. so you can't compare judge gorsuch with judge garland because unlike judge garland, judge gorsuch does not share the same evaluation of being able to be a consensus mainstream candidate who will receive a 60-vote threshold. so for all these reasons, if the majority leader is going to pursue the cloture vote on the gorsuch nomination, i will not vote in favor of cloture. i would hope that we would be able to return to the comity that is important in the united states senate, but we rec

is different from merrick garland. here's what he said. >> i said regardless of who won the election, we'd process this nominee and so we're processing the nominee. 9:00 on election night, everybody thought that hillary clinton was going to be president of the united states, but long time before that 9:00, months before, i said whoever's elected president, we're going to process that nominee and that's what we're doing right now. that's democracy at work. >> so he has a bit of a point, right? as you said, mitch mcconnell, you know, took a big gamble in thinking that this was going it be t to be the outcome, as did chuck grassley. at this point, they are benefiting from whatever good fortunes smiled upon the republican party and elected republicans to both houses and the white house. >> backers of the republican party are smiling now. it's what the court 5-4 has done for these big special interests through the unlimited money in citizens united, through the dark money flow, through all the decisions that protect corpora

let me ask you, what was wrong with allowing merrick garland to have an up or down vote? are you prepared to pass a resolution that says, in election years, any supreme court vacancy inhabit to be the sense of a senate resolution that say, why not put merrick garland on the floor? and if the rationale is you know it's too close to an election, then vote no? [ laughter ] >> seth: how stoned is mitch mcconnell? "merrick garland, that's a funny name." so trump's in over his head with the chinese president. his infrastructure plan is incoherent. and his party had to destroy the rules of the senate just to get his supreme court nominee through. it might be better for everyone if he just went back to playing with his blocks. this has been "a closer look." ♪ [ cheers and applause ] we'll be right back with more "late night" everybody. [ cheers and applause ] ♪ looking for authentic italian flavor? head right to the nearest subway. introducing the italian hero footlong. stacked with genoa salami, mortadella, and spicy capicola. add oil and vinegar and some mediterranean orega

back to merrick garlands. he did have a hearing in november. the american public chose to put donald trump in the white house instead of hillary clinton. president trump put out a list of 20 justices to nominate. the voters were well-versed. they chose a republican president to replace justice scalia instead of a democrat. so merrick garland did get a hearing. >> neil: he didn't. this was before the election. i'm not saying -- >> the voters chose. >> neil: this was prior to that obviously. they argue that the if republicans have the majority in the senate, you know their story, then they could have voted him down. they didn't even give him the courtesy of that. so they're bitter around angry and they hate you guys. >> well, we're going to keep reaching out. president trump ran to make life better for people in my state and he's focused putting jobs in the keystone pipeline. ford put $1.2 billion in plants -- >> neil: you've not given up. there's a way to get this back on track. >> we have to. people are hurting. it would be nice if democrats wo

it's an unprecedented thing on the republicans' part what they did to merrick garland. and further they started arguing with hillary clinton ended up winning the presidency, they would never fill that seat. they would hold it open for the entire time she was president. judge merrick garland waited for 293 days for a senate hearing, the longest any supreme court nominee has ever had to wait. until his nomination ended without him ever getting a hearing. it stayed open for 14 months so republicans could wait until a republican was in place and they could get a republican candidate in that seat. we've never ever gone through a process like that before in this country. we've never filled a supreme court seat like this in this way. ever since justice scalia died, since the day he passed away, the process of filling this seat has ever been normal. today we found out who will fill that seat, republicans got rid of senate rules that have been there forever in order to get neil gorsuch confirmed to the seat. it's done. he will be sworn in on monday. there's nothing anybody can d

the refusal to give a hearing to merrick garland was without precedent. having taken that step, the republican majority looks like they will take the next step which is to change the rules possibly forever and have a narrow partisan vote to confirm supreme court nominees. something that hasn't been done before or traditionalists see happen. >> david, this does lead back to merrick garland. when we have democrats on the program, we say this is political pay back. they said as much. they said now, no, no, this is not political payback. this is gorsuch is just too corporate friendly. his policies are off base. that's the new talking point. >> look, they can try to paint this any way they want. this all gets back to republicans who run the chamber. harry reid breaking the rules to change the rule to nuclear option. i was there when they did it. republicans were very angry about it. democrats say they don't have a right to be angry. they held up bahamobama'snomine. when you look at mitch mcconnell, what you need to understand is he is not prone to political hi

" was used by senator mcconnell when he stopped merrick garland. what we're facing today is the fallout. >> reporter: the final vote on judge gorsuch is expected on friday with republicans predicting victory. raig boswell, cbs news, capitol hill. >>> devin nunes is no longer leading the house investigation into russian meddling in the u.s. election. the republican from california recused himself amid complaints that his secret visits to the white house to review classified documents violated ethics rules. nunes called the charges false. he said it was in the best interests of the investigation if he stepped aside. the house ethics committee will now investigate nunes. >>> we were the first to take you to the top of san francisco's tallest building. >> today, it became official. coming up, the final piece put in place changing the city's skyline. >> plus, lucky to be alive. a woman falls 60 feet from a northern california bridge all because of a selfie. >> and dumped in the bay in a boating accident. a dog missing for days is found alive. ,,,,,,,,,,

>> i think we would really press for a nominee to be someone who is down the middle, like merrick garland. i don't think we would necessarily just say, no, you can't nominate anyone and we won't hold a hearing. to do that, that is unacceptable. we have a constitutional responsibility of advice and consent and we need to hold a vote and put it on the floor. we would really push hard for the president to start from the point of putting someone forward who is not from the far right, the way merrick garland is. >> senator jeff merkley of oregon, who's now dangerously without sleep, sir. i'm not allowed to order you as senator to do anything. as a fellow human being, get somebody to drive you home and go to sleep. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, sir. senator jeff merkley, democrat of oregon. we have a little bit of breaking news tonight. not out of washington but it is politics news. a high ranking republican who's apparently now on the verge of being impeached, looks like he will be criminally charged if he is impeached and looks like he may be. it will be by his fellow republicans. that

they're still furious about what mitch mcconnell did to merrick garland last time." that would have been a sensible solution but not politically possible. >> rose: how much cooperation is there between mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer. >> it's better than it was between mcconnell and reid and we've only, of course, had three months. i think the message here today if it really comes to crunch time-- we're going to hear a whole lot the next couple of weeks about bipartisan bills, bipartisan cooperation. they will get some. they won't shut down the government. but when it comes to a real crunch, i think there's now precedent that has been set. harry reid started it four years ago with appellate court judges. mitch mcconnell continued it when he sat on merrick garland for 10 months so there are no limits on what they can change now. >> rose: as the other big stories played out this week behind the scenes at the white house, a power struggle among the president's advisers appeared to be coming to a head. with me now is mike allen. he is the cofounder of the news site axe

he came up with the name merrick garland, the chief judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, a man who was widely respected. juneed unanimously well -- judged unanimously well qualified by the american bar association and president obama submitted his name to this congress, to the senate, a senate which is with a republican majority and a leader, senator mitch mcconnell of kentucky. senator mcconnell and the republican senators did something that had never happened in the history of this claim better, not once -- chamber, not once. they denied to president obama's nominee the opportunity for a hearing and a vote. in fact, senator mcconnell went further and said i won't even meet with the man. it had never happened before. and you say to yourself, well, come on, this isn't bean bag. you're in washington. this is major league politics. this sort of thing must happen all the time. never. in fact, if you go back not that far in history to 1988 and the last year of president ronald reagan's presidency, his fourth year, some call it the lame duck year, the

he blocked merrick garland for over a year, we wouldn't even be here if judge garland was given fair consideration. that's why we are here today, not because of any democrat. finally on the wall, mr. president, a place where there may be more agreement between some of us than on judge garland, last night we learned that the trump administration will be seeking deep cuts to critical domestic programs in order to pay for a border wall. the administration is asking the american taxpayer to cover the cost of a wall, unneeded, ineffective, absurdly expensive that mexico was supposed to pay for, and he is cutting programs that are vital to the middle class in order to get that done. they want to cut the new starts transportation program, tiger grants. these are the lifeblood of our road and tunnel and bridge-building efforts. build the wall or repair or build a bridge or tunnel or road in your community? what's the choice? they want to cut off n.i.h. funding for cancer research to pay for the wall. how many americans would support that decision? and they want to cut programs that create jo

i will start with merrick garland. merrick, what was it like being the judge's clerk, and how did you get the clerkship? i do not know how i got it, but i got -- now have a chief justice that is. [laughter] >> you're welcome. as you have heard, judge friendly was a loyal harvard alum, and always had a harvard clerk. in my year, i was the clerk and to call around at harvard and find what the best prospect for my law clerk's were a year. i called around and bolts -- ault was sitting right next to me. clerked toff, who years before me, and was responsible for me. the clerkship itself -- i was a little bit later and i think the judge had metal owed best mellowed -- mellowed by then. we have a lot of terrifying stories about how he would treat us when we got there, but i'm happy to say none of them came true and i do not think it was because we were more able. in our case, he was austere and distance. but he was never mean or not nice to us. we had quite a number of legends about him, about how he would get terribly angry i

. >> democrats, including me, are still furious at the way judge merrick garland was treated last year. >> reporter: senator chris coons says it was republicans' refusal to confirm president obama's nominee merrick garland that led to the current showdown. >> the traditions and principles that have defined the senate are crumbling and we are poised to hasten that destruction this week. so for my part i hope and pray that we can yet find a way together to find a solution. >> reporter: it was democrats who voted in 2013 to end filibusters for lower court justices and cabinet-level appointees. some senators on both sides of the aisle are still holding out hope for some kind of deal, but at this point that seems unlikely. >> pelley: jan crawford on capitol hill, jan, thanks. the white house condemned the deadly attack today on the subway system in spartanburg, russia. -- st. petersburg, russia. the president called it a terrible thing. at least 11 people were killed, dozens more wounded when a bomb exploded on a train traveling between stations. elizabeth palmer is in russia. >> reporter:

and i think what's happening now is democrats are saying if you are giving merrick garland a hearing and voted them down, we didn't even get a hearing. dagen: according to president trump the healthcare battle is far from over. he's suggesting it's just beginning. in a series of tweets the president said anybody who thinks repeal and replace of obamacare is dead does not note love and strength in r. party. talks have been going on and will continue until such time as a dice hopefully struck. the president yesterday, yeah, invited kentucky republican senator rand paul out for a round of golf because everything is solved on the links, along with budget director mick mulvaney. will the president's charm offensive turn that around? i have to go to all of you since it's rand paul. >> i appreciate the president saying it's all about love in the republican party. that came 24 hours after saying we have to defeat the freedom caucus. brand paul has been playing this gambit of being close to trump. some distance to him precisely because he wanted to be the guy in this moment. he might have tha

a nominee like merrick garland. this is about confirming a nominee who will guarantee 40 years, 40 more years, of 5-4 decisions favoring corporations overworkers and consumers and preventing americans from getting access to the courts. >> reporter: the crucial vote on that nuclear option could happen on thursday. democrats have 42 is that rigse their side so republicans have to strike a deal with two of them to break a filibuster. however the option was left open for a compromise, but again that's also looking unlikely. the final confirmation vote on neil gorsuch right now is scheduled for friday evening. >> obviously going to be a crucial day. thank you. >>> now with my our senior panel. just for the politics of this, smart move for the democrats to go ahead with a filibuster here to force republicans to change the rules to quote unquote go nuclear to confirm him. >> it depends on a smart move for whom and to what end. jeffry and i have been going back and forth about whether or not it matters all day. i'll let him

first of all, they're still furious about merrick garland never getting a vote. they call this a stolen seat. they also think that gorsuch was really evasive in some of his answers during his testimony on things like gay marriage, corporate issues, campaign finance. and then we'll also hear from that ranking member, dianne feinstein, and she's going to target women's health issues. remember, donald trump said during the campaign that he was going to put pro-life judges on the bench, and the democrats, they felt like that gave them license to ask gorsuch more about issues such as roe v. wade, and they felt like he didn't answer them, he evaded them. here's the most important thing -- this could be the first step in changing the way supreme court nominees are chosen, and that's a big deal for the senate, but also for the supreme court. >> ariane de vogue for us in washington. again, you're looking at live pictures right now from the senate judiciary committee. this meeting gets under way shortly and they will vote, presumably, today, and judge neil gorsuch will get

we would be celebrating merrick garland one year on the bench. we are here because of the republicans to line this vacancy up for the next republican president. there has been a lot of damage that may be done to the senate with this nomination and the votes we take. it breaks my heart to find us in this position. i love this place. i have been here for a big part of my life and i can remember things about it as senators who are senior as i am about this institution. what it used to be like, what the standards used to be, the pride we took in the senate. but then came this onslaught of filibusters, unprecedented in the history of this body. senator mcconnell and republican majority at the time, even in the minority status did everything they could to stop the orderly consideration of bills and nominations, leading to the point where the second most important federal court in the land, they couldn't feel vake cans cyst because of the threats of filibusters for these nominations and that's what led to this well worn and well discussed rules change.

that never happened with merrick garland. merrick garland never got so much as an opportunity to sit before a bunch of senators in front of the american public. he was a consensus candidate. he was someone chosen largely because of his record in securing republican votes for his lower court appointments. so the notion that sort of democrats by holding a standard, the 60-vote standard, allowing -- he's had his hearing. he's going to have a cloture vote and it's designed to determine wll thehether there id base support for this nominee. if you cannot get those 60 votes, then find a nominee who can build consensus. >> well, donald trump is never going to put a justice up that will get consensus from the left. that will be nearly impossible. there's no question about that. and while, yes, judge garland should have should have had certainly at least very much a hearing, the democrats shouldn't make the same mistakes that the republicans did. now, what concerns me is that the republicans before, you know, this last go-around where

cher is referring to the block of the obama pick merrick garland. even cher is saying enough is enough. >> if cher is saying you ought to calm down we ought to reconsider. gorsuch is going to be confirmed. he will be the next supreme court justice. and this will hurt the democrats. when they go nuclear they will be able to do that after the fact. when it comes to appointing a liberal justice, we'll have another conservative justice that will go through with the nuclear option and i'm perfectly fine with that. liz: north korea shooting off another missile. sources telling fox news, this launch looks like a failure. this as president trump gets ready to host xi jinping tomorrow. president trump has criticized china's role in not doing enough to rein in north korea. what are you hearing from trump 0 officious on whether we can do it alone? >> you are seeing secretary tillerson echo what candidate trump said on the campaign trail. he said we are not saying anything else. no further comment, and i think now that we have china coming down to meet with pre

think the way they treated the democratic nominee merrick garland -- they do not even give him the decency of a hearing. having said that, i think these overdile keels -- tears the 60 vote is kind of ridiculous. it almost speaks to an old wave the senate had use ago when it was first enacted. it is just too politically divided now. there is no compromise. there is no working together. or is no bipartisan. there is no bipartisan. now, without earmarks >> and we'll leave this discussion at this point for live coverage of the u.s. house. members returning to debate a bill regarding companies that provide their own

republicans refused even a hearing last year for president obama's nominee, merrick garland. now, it will be harder to block future nominations and could the nuclear option spread in the senate. >> the big question is whether it will spread to legislation. i think the pressure will be there the next time there's a major showdown over a big piece of legislation when the minority is blocking it, there will be a lot of pressure to go nuclear on that. >> reporter: as it stands now gorsuch is expected to be easily confirmed with a simple majority as the next u.s. supreme court justice friday evening. abc7 news. >>> california congressman devin nunes has recused himself under investigation under enormous pressure in the 2017 investigation in the election. >> did you discover classified information? >> i issued a statement. you guys have it. >> investigating allegations nunes may have made disclosures of classified information. he said he's looking forward to a fresh start kay according to the democrat member. >> we need to get fully back on track. it is worth noting the investigati

they've said this was a seat that really should have gone to merrick garland. they've even accused him of plaguerism. all of these arguments have no merit whatsoever. and really represent desperate attempts to try to block this outstanding nominee. their claims were simply baseless. and that became even clearer as folks from across the political spectrum and newspapers from across the country urged our democratic colleagues to drop their pointless filibuster and allow an up-or-down vote. what also came to light is the type of man judge gorsuch is, a man of integrity, a man of strong independence. in other words, exactly the kind of person you would want to serve on the united states supreme court. they even claimed that judge gorsuch went out of his way to side with the big guy against the little guy ignoring the fact that during his ten years on the tenth circuit court of appeals where these judges sit in multijudge panels, that he was part of the majority decision 99% of the time. 97% of those cases were unanimous in multijudge panel decisions on the tenth ci

they've said this was a seat that really should have gone to merrick garland. they've even accused him of plaguerism. all of these arguments have no merit whatsoever. and really represent desperate attempts to try to block this outstanding nominee. their claims were simply baseless. and that became even clearer as folks from across the political spectrum and newspapers from across the country urged our democratic colleagues to drop their pointless filibuster and allow an up-or-down vote. what also came to light is the type of man judge gorsuch is, a man of integrity, a man of strong independence. in other words, exactly the kind of person you would want to serve on the united states supreme court. they even claimed that judge gorsuch went out of his way to side with the big guy against the little guy ignoring the fact that during his ten years on the tenth circuit court of appeals where these judges sit in multijudge panels, that he was part of the majority decision 99% of the time. 97% of those cases were unanimous in multijudge panel decisions on the tenth ci

merrick garland knows it is. at the time i pleaded with senator alexander sever times, -- several times, my dear friend from tennessee, to let us vote on some of the judges from the d.c. circuit. i asked him to go to senator mcconnell and say the pressure on our side to change the rules after all these filibusters was going to be large. let's avoid it, i said. but senator mcconnell said no. republicans refused all of our overtures to break the deadlock that they imposed. so if the majority leader wants to conduct this partisan they started it exercise, i'm sure we can trace it all the way back to the hamilton-burr dual. the fact of the matter is the republicans blocked merrick garland using the most unprecedented maneuvers. now we are likely to block judge gorsuch, and that means that neither party has gotten their party's choice in the last two years. so, mr. president, we can go back and forth and blame each other, but in the recent history of the vacancy caused by justice scalia's death, we both lost. we lost

and further more, if there is a person confirmed to the seat other than merrick garland, it casts a shadow over every 5-4 decision that individual participates in in the years to come. it destroys the credibility of the position? -- the position. it makes the supreme court into a political body to which clever campaign tactics have delivered a majority for one ideological vision over another. let us not enter into that position of destroying the credibility of the senate process and the integrity of the court in one fell swoop. and second of all, we should not be considering a nominee from a president who is under investigation for conspiring with russia to change the outcome of an election. we don't know where those investigations will lead, but what we do know is this places a big cloud over the legitimacy of him holding the office. let us clear up that cloud. let us answer the questions that have been raised from a week ago monday. f.b.i. director comey came to capitol hill to talk to the house to say yes, those investigations are under way. and we know what the diabolical practices of

republicans refused even a hearing last year for president obama's nominee, merrick garland. now, it will be harder to block future nominations and could the nuclear option spread in the senate. >> the big question is whether it will spread to legislation. i think the pressure will be there the next time there's a major showdown over a big piece of legislation when the minority is blocking it, there will be a lot of pressure to go nuclear on that. >> reporter: as it stands now gorsuch is expected to be easily confirmed with a simple majority as the next u.s. supreme court justice friday evening. abc7 news. >>> california congressman devin nunes has recused himself under investigation under enormous pressure in the 2017 investigation in the election. >> did you discover classified information? >> i issued a statement. you guys have it. >> investigating allegations nunes may have made disclosures of classified information. he said he's looking forward to a fresh start kay according to the democrat member. >> we need to get fully back on track. it is worth noting the investigati

and i want to make clear that despite my outrage about what happened to merrick garland, which was far worse than a filibuster -- one of my colleagues have termed it the filibuster of all filibusters -- and despite my deep concern over a nomination from a president who so disrespects the judicial branch, i was prepared to give judge gorsuch a fair hearing, and i will my colleagues on the judiciary committee and i provided that hearing, and we will provide a vote. i strongly believe that during this process judge gorsuch had a special obligation to be forthcoming. i want to be clear. that is not opining on cases or controversies that may come before him or issues that may be before his court. -- if he is confirmed. unlike prior nominees, he absolutely refused to say what he agreed -- when he agreed with core principles and precedents, well-established and long-accepted decisions of the united states supreme court that embody and enshrine principles that the american people have accepted and that they expect the supreme court to implement. there is no tradition of supreme court nominees

. >> democrats expressed anger over the treatment judge merrick garland received. he was nominated but never considered last year. >> my conscience will let not allow me to ratify the majority leader's actions. not last year, not this year. i will not, i cannot support this nomination. >> lindsey graham said it was wrong to take it out on judge gorsuch. >> it says more about the senate that it does judge gorsuch. >> after feinstein, senator leahy, and mark warner so they were voting no, delaware senator chris coons became the 41st democrat, enough to sustain a filibuster. >> i will be voting against cloture unless we are able as a body to sit down and find a way to avoid the nuclear option. >> there was a clash when ted cruz suggested this is pure politics. >> it's the action of a handful of left wing billionaires spending money to organize activists on the ground that are, in effect, holding democratic senators hostage. >> the democrats are afraid of being primaried. >> this has been building up for years. all i can say is, what goes around comes around. >> republ

and i say hey, right on, merrick garland, merrick garland it can also somebody who was not the person from the heritage foundation list, somebody who is going to represent all of us. so i want to thank you all for your activism and makes a difference what you are doing. they kind of engagement makes a huge difference to us. believe me, when the folks come to my office every tuesday and when we hear from thousands of you all across the country, it keeps me going. it keeps me going and i thank you from the bottom of my heart for everything that you do. [applause] >> and then let me leave you with one more thought. as we care about lgbtq writes, as we care about voting rights, as we care about our rights of the woman to choose, a lot of these cases that will go to the supreme court comes from the states. we have to pay attention to who gets elected to the state legislatures. we have to pay attention to who becomes our governor because all of these cases emanate from the states. so i know you're going to be out there all across the country making sure that you are getting, you are electin

greg: of course, merrick garland was a different situation because you had the house and senate controlled by different parties at that point. it is not as if the president had been constrained in appointing somebody they like when they do have control of the senate in their party. it really remains to be seen. future nominations will all happen in a particular political context. it may be that for various reasons, presidents do need to pull their punches a little bit. we are just going to have to see. hil, have the democrats use ammunition maybe they should not have used given that neil gorsuch is almost certain to be confirmed anyway? sahil: yes, there is some regrets, some democrats that maybe we should not have changed the rules in 2013, but at the time, and number of holdouts ended up deciding to go nuclear and support harry reid on that, but remember, what republicans were doing was blockading the d c circuit court of appeals. there were three vacancies. the republican position with nobody should be confirmed to that court. it is a powerful court and has the final say on many executi

where were they last year when president obama dominated merrick garland supreme court of the united states? they were awol. shortly after justice scalia passed away and before president obama even named his nominee, the senate republican leader announced he would leave the seat up it and he did for an unprecedented 293 days.am for 293 days, mr. president, one of the most qualified and mainstream nominees in our history to languish without a hearing. many senators refused even to the present. for 293 days, it democrats in cy this chamber and people all over the country called upon the senate to do its job and consider the nomination of judge merrick garland.ponse? the response, nothing. a total at occasion of this sentence comes additional responsibility at consent. but unfortunately, the chamber's failure to live up to the responsibility consider the nomination is one piece of ace o larger assault on the independence of our judiciary. president trump has made it clear that he sees our nation's judges not as a separate and coequal branch, but demanding full challenge to his power. be

garland, president obama's nominee. that's what led up to the vote. where did the name neil gorsuch come from? it's true. he served on the tenth circuit for ten years. he had been approved by the united states senate. he certainly had a strong resu resume, but how did he get on the finalist list? most the time you never know. presidents don't always disclose how they come up with names, but in this case was very open. during the course of the campaign, donald trump the candidate, listed 21 names of people he would consider appointing. on that list was neil gorsuch of colorado.ic how did that name make the list? we know because president trump told us. know he was the choice of the federalisfederalist society ande heritage foundation. they are conservative groups and they were going to pick nominees approved by them and submit them to donald trump, which he then publicized. we know that because at the end of the day donald trump thanked the federalist society for nominating judge gorsuch. now, i said through the hearin h

garland last year. the fact that he was denied a vote has poisoned the feeling on democrats so much that there is some sentiment -- chuck schumer has actually said this, there's some sentiment that if they withdraw or gorsuch, they woult to another nominee. i don't that's the case, but there was a possibility that gorsuch is going to be the sacrificial lamb and you make it back to normal, we'll never know because by the end of the day, will have gone nuclear. >> jon: they are tallying the votes right now. again, they need 60 votes to end debate. 60 votes to pass culture here. we do not expect that the senate is going to have the 60 votes and that's going to trigger all sorts of senate parliamentary maneuvering that we suspect will end the so-called nuclear optio option. we may have the votes within the next minute or two go to to toy stomach republicans have the votes, it is believed to put judges gorsuch on the high cour court. there wouldn't be senator mccain voting against him, with their? >> senator

neil: but they didn't like the way merrick garland was treated. they say it is very different, what harry reid did about cabinet appointments that were stymied. they said under barack obama, republicans said this was very different matter. they went through with this, repercussions how likely donald trump could appoint generational justices maybe at least a couple more. >> right. practically speaking i'm surprised senate democrats basically went through with this i understand emotion. they're not sure about judge gorsuch, but pretty hard to find something you can grab on to in his record or his testimony before the judiciary committee that leads you to say, this guy will be an awful supreme court justice. quite the opposite. neil: i think the base of each party is winning the day. when some of these democrats were told, you go ahead and vote for this guy, we'll primary you. >> that's right. neil: similar members, you know, conservative voters say if you go ahead and vote for this we're going to primary you, they have locked into these extreme posi

and that was the same argument that was made with merrick garland. are we going to see a nominee appointed at some point soon? >>> if you're the ruling party the president has a right to appoint a president i guess if you will a supreme court nominee. that is that person who favors the values that. what you'd like to see is a mainstream person who can garnish support from both sides and so you look at it and you say, in the event that you do block gorsuch do you get somebody worse than him moving forward? or do you get somebody potentially who could be better? just briefly. we have a aging supreme court. you look at bader ginsburg and they are getting up there in age. what could could we be talking about in the years ahead? trump may be appointing other justice to come. >> a lot of politics in play. joey, thank you. >>> one of gorsuch foamrmer law clerk, i spoke with teresa warden. watch. something we are getting from a democratic senator who released this weekend she will not be voting to confirm judge gorsuch from missouri senator claire mccaskill.

but many other people will insist on calling i am justice merrick garland because it will never ever, ever, ever ever be normal that senate republicans wouldn't allow president obama to appoint a justice to fill that seat on the court simply because he was a president from the democratic party. that will never ever, ever be normal. so as far as i'm concerned today, justice kneel merrick garland gorsuch got sworn in, and the court is back to nine members. and the prethat is the new star in our country but with gorsuch slash garland being sworn in today, that is officially the way it's going to be from here on out. welcome to your new supreme court era in american history. also today, the white house apparently scrapped its next big policy plan re-do the tax code. they are getting shy about big policy stuff. they are getting shy about trying to do taxes overhaul as well according to the associated press today. disagrees on recess this week. the plan to re-do the tax code has been a convenient hook for constituents back home to ber rate their members of congress that donald trump shouldn

he nominated one of the most qualified nominees in the history of the court, judge merrick garland. shortly before judge garland was nominated. senator hatch, one of our most respected republican colleagues on the judiciary committee, said judge garland would be a great pick. senator hatch went on to say that president obama, quote, probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election, end quote. but president obama did do it. judge garland is not just a fine jurist. he's an exceptional human being. judge garland's lifelong commitment to public service is well known. he deserved far better treatment by the senate majority. judge garland was denied a hearing. many of my republican colleagues wouldn't even give him the courtesy of a meeting. he even got -- and he never got a vote which was a disgrace. and it is an injustice that needs to be remedied before i could ever consider voting for judge gorsuch. president trump could fix this. he could make a commitment to nominate judge garland to the next vacant seat on the court. it would be the right thing to do. i've been

that was merrick garland. and so the majority said, we can't have a debate on him because the senate will approve him, because he's that qualified. he'll get that bipartisan support. that's the principle of the filibuster. that is, that you don't close debate unless 60 members say you close debate. and so 41 say we're not ready for whatever reason. you keep debating. and that sends a strong message for presidents to do what president obama did, who consulted with the democrats and consulted with the republicans and chose somebody who'd be acceptable on both sides. that's the way it's supposed to work. and when a president ignores that and says, i'm going to support somebody from the extreme, i'm going to nominate somebody from the extremes, that's an invitation for the senate to say, no, the reputation, legitimacy of the court matters, and so we're not going to approve this judge. and that's probably what's going to happen this week. the majority here in the senate may say they want to close debate, but will t

garland. >> if seven months of preventing judge merrick garland from getting a hearing and a vote is anything, it is the longest, most successful partisan filibuster in history. >> the supreme court showdown playing out on capitol hill as the white house tries to revive the health care battle. vice president mike pence meeting with freedom caucus last night trying to win them over with two new offers. first allowing states to opt out of providing essential health benefits provided under obamacare. also on the table, a waiver for insurers to opt out of requirements that ban them from charging higher premiums based on gender, age, or prior illness. >> we're encouraged by at least the idea, intrigued by the idea, but certainly need a whole lot more information but we can take any action. >> meantime back on the gorsuch battle, the wheels in motion will start turning on all of this today. at some point senate majority leader mitch mcconnell will move to end the vote. that will set up key procedural vote on thursday. we suspect as we've been reporting that filibuster will not be defeated.

garland hearing was denied a vote. i think we have been on the slippery slope for a long time. you had harry reid, got rid of the filibuster for the other nominations. the american garland hold, whatever you want to call it, nothing filibuster is gone. but i think is interesting, mitch mcconnell is very clear, not while i'm the leader. no interest on my side to get rid of the legislative bill buster. i think it probably only is a matter of time before it goes, and that will not be good for republicans. >> new mexico and make it to the house? >> look how hard it is for republican majority to get rid of a piece of legislation passed by democrats. if democrats have the maturity again, which they will eventually at some point, they will pass all sorts of stuff without filibuster and it will be very hard for republicans. >> so far, that's not happening. >> i find it hard to join in the lamentations for the filibuster. it has been completely abused, not just on judicial appointments but for the last 30 or 40 years. historica

they said it was the republicans are blocked judge merrick garland. here's tonight's update from washington. >> at least 41 senators all democrats a pleasure opposition to donald trump supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. by denying republicans the requisite 60 votes known as cloture and political speak. democrats can prevent a full floor vote to confirm their core search for later this week. >> no one in the senate republican conference, no one, has ever voted to filibuster a supreme court nominee. >> mitch mcconnell has been warning he will be confirmed one way or another. the other way is to use the nuclear option. changing procedure in the upper chamber by requiring only a simple majority or 51 votes to invoke closure instead of the tradition 60 vote threshold. >> no one is forcing senator mcconnell to change the rules. he's doing it of his own volition. >> republicans were against the nuclear option when democrat harry reid changed the rules in order to clear the way for former president obama's picks for the us court of appeals for the district o