the core of the senate is the legislative filibuster. this business of filibustering judges is a creation of senator schumer when george bush 43.elected. not a long-standing edition of the senate. we are back to where we were as late as 2000 and the best test of that would've been the clarence thomas nomination in 1991. nobody would be a argue that was the most controversial supreme court nomination ever. you all know all it takes to get 60 votes in the senate is one senator out of a hundred to say i want to get 60 votes. nobody did. that's a pretty strongly held custom. that is the way the senate operated until 2000. this notion that this somehow bleeds over into the legislative filibuster is untrue. i'm opposed to it, senator collins, as you know is circulating a letter to senator schumer and myself of members who support the legislative filibuster. i would be the beneficiary, and my party would be the beneficiary of changing that. i am opposed to changing that. i think that is what fundamentally changes the senate. republicans have al

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. .the senator from rhode island. a senator: i thank the senator from oregon for yielding. mr. whitehouse: i want to say how nice it is to see the senator from georgia back here with us. it means a lot to all of us to have senator isakson back home in the senate. mr. wyden: mr. president, i don't want to turn this into a bouquet tossing contest, but i think it's very clear that senators on both sides of the aisle are very, very pleased to see our friend from georgia back today. we are wishing him good health and godspeed johnny and look forward to a full and complete recovery. so glad to have you here. impleased that senator -- i'm pleased that senator coons is on the floor. it is fair to say that members on both sides of the isles have seen how -- aisles would say that are senator coons makes all of us very, very proud. it's no secret that he has tried repeatedly to bring both sides together and he and i have talked often about this. i think they are going to be opportunities for finding common ground on some importa

i have become the dean of the senate. and for those 42 years, i devoted myself to the good that the senate could accomplish. but i cannot vote solely to protect an institution when the rights of hardworking americans are at risk, because i fear that the senate, i would be defending no longer exists. i have often said that the senate at its best can be and should be the conscience of the nation. ut i must first and foremost vote my conscience both today and later this week, my conscience will not ratify the majority leader's action, not last year and not this year. i will not, i cannot support advancing this nomination. senator grassley: senator raham. senator graham: we have had a spirited days of talking about judge gorsuch and i will vote for him with a clear conscience. one thing we need to look at is the a.b.a. is a bit of a stretch. here's what he said. cases in controversies are his life's work. you know, you just don't drop by the supreme court and say i would like to get rid of brown versus board of education. the

the senate. we don't engage in partisan filibusters of supreme court nominees. yesterday i came to the floor to speak about the path that brought us to this point as i discussed way back in 2001 -- referring to the year 2001, the current minority leader and some of his allies on the far left hatched a plan to, in their words, change the ground rules with regard to lower-court nominees. i noted a "new york times" article describing the democrat senatorial caucus retreat where the new approach to nominees was discussed. in other words where they discussed the strategy for changing the ground rules of how judges are considered by the united states senate. and so, mr. president, i want to put that in the record, may 1, 2001, "new york times" article entitled "washington talks, democrats readying for a judicial fight. ". the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: thank you. after a brief time in the majority, senate democrats were back in the minority in 2003. so approximately two years a

they have control of the white house, the senate and the house. if they are insisting on wasting taxpayer money i think some of us have to stand up and say no. however, if we have to we'll go to a considering resolution. that's a failure, by the way, because we should have a budget but at least let's make sure the government stays open. >> subsidize for obamacare, the affordable care act, are also at stake. the president thinks the democratic party will get the blame if the government shuts down fwhaus his opinion observing sear in a depth spiral and they need the money to keep it a lot. what do you make of the president's perspective? >> i totally its agree and let me remind you that we entered no had a budget agreement, forever this year's budget, so the republicans are backtrack from an agreement that had already been regards to the f-17 budget. we won't allow an emergency budget to dictate our health care policy in this country. we're more than willing to debate ways to improve health care in america. we won't support the appeal of the afforda

of the senate. they're having this conversation. that's when that conversation came up and we believe it to be apocryphal but still the response, as written down at some later point in time, was washington asked of jefferson, why did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it? jefferson responded, to cool t my throat is not made of brass. even so, said washington, we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it. is there a way that we can avoid what is unfolding now, this tragic miscarriage of the senate's responsibilities? whether that conversation took place, as i mentioned, is not actually known, but the fact of the story is still -- but the fact that the story is still here means that it had some power behind it, whether it took place or not. and that was that for 200 years and counting, the government has counted on the senate to pause, to not give acceleration to the momentum of the day, to pause and be thoughtful in considering the integrity of our institu

advisor tom bossert and the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, senator burr. while in new york i met with the under-secretary general of the united nations for political affairs who has responsibility for counterterrorism. i also spoke to the council on foreign relations on the topic islamist terrorism in southeast asia. on my visit of his company by the secretary of the attorney generals department and senior officials. my meetings like those of miss bishop and send it a pain are hardly a reminder of the depth and breadth of our relationship with the united states, and indicates at the meeting from i've recently returned, in particular its intelligence and security agencies. >> thank you, mr. president could the attorney general advice this and what the outcome of these meetings was? >> thank you, senator, sorry, mr. president. i can tell honorable senators that the level of cooperation between american and australian agencies, intelligence and national security matters both bilaterally and through the five eyes group of nations remain entirely unaffected by

of the senate. the answer is to change the nominee and do what president clinton and president obama did before they nominated people, consult the other party so that they would be some semblance of bipartisanship. the majority is trying to makefi this a binary choice. confirm gorsuch or change the rules. not so. just not so. the idea that if judge gorsuch can't get 60 we must immediately move to change the rules is a false narrative. if the majority chooses to go that route, they do so at their own volition.

to pass the senate. even justices roberts and justice alito were very conservative earned a bunch of democratic votes and each got more than 60. free semester president they canay choose to go nuclear boris the damage democrats to find a way forward to preserve the grand tradition. the majority leader himself has said the one thing is to protect the integrity of this institution i did ricans stipulate so mitch mcconnell in the senate sostandr owe i believe that meets the majority of the leader standard of the 60 votes. court and with those controversial matters republican friends consider the option to workge together to find a solution we can both except mac like a novel concept but that option is always on the table. important >> this week is important for the american people. the supreme court and for the senate. the with the supreme court nominee and then to break with recent precedent and what is widely respected the supreme court nominee. to simply agree to the uproar down voter nomination

senator coons is here coming down the hallway -- senator -- senator coons, you are the person who really made this headline -- so, katy, apparently the senator not wanting to add too much more to his comments here, simply going through that door. but he, of course, will be the person in the headlines today as the person who tipped the balance here and set the stage for this nuclear option. >> eagle-eyed and quick on her toes, kasie hunt. >>> let's play some of the sounds from democrats saying they're going to try to block kne neil gorsuch. i know senator coons didn't answer any of kacie's questions, but listen to this. >> unfortunately, based on gorsuch's record in the department of justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the senate and his written questions for the record, i cannot support this nomination. >> my conscience will not allow me to ratify the majority leaders' actions. not last year, not this year. i will not, i cannot support this nomination. >> senators feinstein and leahy right there. kristin welker, if mitch mcconnell has to go nuclear to get this through

the remarks of the senator from oregon, senator merkley. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. rubio: with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, is there a quorum call in place? the presiding officer: there is not. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i rise to address the nomination of neil gorsuch and i'll start by noting that just moments ago, the majority leader was on the floor and did something that has never before been done in u.s. history, and that is on the first day, indeed the first hours of debate on a supreme court justice on this floor, the majority leader filed a petition culled a cloture petition to close debate. so here we are in the first day just hours into debate and the majority leader said enough. we don't want to hear any more about this topic. we're going to shut down debate. now, the rules provide some protection for this, and that is it can't be voted on until thursday. so there's

pass the senate. no one is making our republican colleagues change the rules. no one is forcing senator mcconnell to change the rules. he's doing it at his own volition, just as he prevented merrick garland from getting a vote at his own volition. senator mcconnell and my republican colleagues are completely free actors and making a choice, a very bad one, in our opinion. now, i know my friends on the other side of the aisle are uncomfortable with this choice, so they are scrambling for arguments to justify breaking the rules. let me go through a few of these justifications and explain why each doesn't hold up. first, many of my republican colleagues will argue that they can break the rules because, quote, democrats started it in 2013 when we lowered the bar for lower court nominees and cabinet appointments. well, let's talk about that. the reason majority leader reid changed the rules was because republicans had ramped up the use of the filibuster, the very filibuster they now decry, to historic prop

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i rise today to offer my support to the nomination of -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. enzi: thank you. i would ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you. as i was saying, i rise today to offer my support for the nomination of judge neil gorsuch to be the supreme court of the united states of america. several weeks ago shortly after president trump announced this nomination, i came to the floor to say what an admirable choice he had made and had known him for some time. now after meeting with judge gorsuch to discuss his nomination and after reviewing his qualifications and after observing my colleagues on the senate judiciary committee thoroughly vet him, i'm all the more convinced that this man is eminently qualified to serve as america's next associate justice of the supreme court. i was impressed that both of his senators introduced him to the committee for the hearing. i was kind of

so, when we have a contest for the senate seat, it isn't just about the senate, it's about the seat of affecting the outcome o. the court because all you need is a simple majority. whether or not it means changing the legislative filibuster which would be the end of the senate, i don't know. but i don't think it helps. there will be a majority around here one day be president of the same party, control of the house and they will get frustrated because the other side won't let them do everything they want to do and they will be tempted to go down this road of getting away witgiving awaywith a 60 voo pass a bill and not appoint a of the senate. we made that more likely by doing this. it was more likely in 2013. i hope i'm wrong but i think that we set in motion the eventual demise of the senate. the only thing i can't say optimistically aoptimistically o change the rules for the judicial nomination i will never vote to change the rules for a legislation and the reason i'meo voting to change the rules is i don't know what i would go home and tell people why they got on the court and gorsu

the senate judiciary committee. the house ways and means. the senate appropriations committee. the house rules committee. the joint conference committee. with d.t to go >> you got it. >> we are looking at the house of representatives, there are distinctions between the house and senate. one of the biggest distinctions, you will be asked on thursday, what is the house rules committee? there is no rules committee like this in the senate. in part because the house is so big, 435 members, it is rowdy. the house rules committee is given that authority to determine how will the debate go on the house floor. the senate, not necessarily peaceful and passive either, but the senate has the filibuster rule. andne can stop that vote abate forever until the -- the rules committee determines those open and close rules. >> let's clarify, we don't write the test, and we don't know if it will be on there, but one of the concepts that citizens should know is the legislative process in the house and senate is quite different. the house is always a much faster process. they limit debate. that is s

but the senate acted. or let's take a look at william woods, the nominee from president rutherford hayes, also nominated in december of that year, just months before the new president would come in, but nevertheless the senate acted. in these cases, they confirm the nominee in that short amount of time. they vetted, they acted, they fulfilled their responsibility under the constitution. that is one group. there is another group of nominees in an election year where the vacancy occurred before the election, but the nominee was nominated after the election. there are four in that group. we have president john quincy adams. he nominated him was in again, just a28, few months before the new president would take office. and by the senate. the senate chose to postpone the action, but they acted. they took a vote. they decided. jeremiah black, the nominee in february 1861, trfs there was -- there was a motion to proceed. they rejected. we have a nominee in 1864 by aibham lincoln and that nominee was confirmed. an

i have seen the articles written, it's the end of the senate, the death of the senate. it's a little bit of an exaggeration. i think is it reflective of the fact that this is how pom particulars have become -- politics have become that we are got able to have a debate on serious issues like we were once able to do. i think everyone's to blame. today, most articles on the issues before us are not about the issues before us. they are about the politics of the issues before us. today, most of the work that's done in this chamber and in the other chamber has more to do with the messaging behind it than it does with the end result that the world will lead us. that's just the honest fact. and before people start writing or blogging, look at all these other times when the senator from florida, when me, when i did some of these things, i admit it. i don't think there is a single person here with clean hands on any of this. i admit that i have been involved in efforts that looking back on some of these things perhaps if we knew then what we knew now we would have done differentl

the senate judiciary committee has approved neil gorsuch but the next confirmation could change the senate irrepubl irrepublicarably. >>> and violent storms sweep across the south, leaving at least five people dead. more severe weather is expected this week. >>> good morning, i'm alex witt along ayman mohyeldin and louis burgdorf. plus, chapel hill finds redemption. >> big night. >>> first, senate republicans are preparing to invoke the so-called nuclear option as the confirmation of president trump's supreme court nominee neil gorsuch heads toward a dramatic final vote. yesterday the senate judiciary committee approved gorsuch's nomination in an 11-9 vote. it went along party lines. that vote essentially served as a preview of what will likely be a seismic contentious vote by the full senate. at some point today mitch mcconnell will file the proceeding to end debate on gorsuch's nomination with hopes of a final vote by friday, but 42 democrats have publicly announced their opposition to the nomination and support for a fill buster. in response, senator mcconnell has left open the option o

the senate floor. i do not agree with the approach but like it or not, in number of you have showed us today that is the reality. on thursday, the full senate will participate in what is called a cloture vote. it is one of the senate's many long traditions and though many americans may not know exactly what it means, it means that we are done debating. that we are ready for the final vote. almost always a combination of both democrats and republicans are required for us to get to cloture. and so on thursday, we will be voting to decide whether we are ready to finish debating the confirmation of judge gorsuch. i am not ready to end debate on this issue. i will be voting against cloture unless we are able, as a body, to finally sit down and find a way to avoid the nuclear option and ensure the process to fill the next vacancy on the court is not a narrowly partisan process, but rather an opportunity of both parties to weigh in and ensure replacement judge on the court who can secure support from members

the longest serving democrat in the senate right now. patrick leahy will join me. >>> the timing couldn't have been worse one week after the trump administration said they are no longer ousting assad. they perpetrated one of the deadliest attacks in years. the pictures are very disturbing. at least 83 people including 25 children have been killed according to the relief agency. 350 more that are injured. the department official said the weapons attack looks to be a war crime. they blamed the obama administration saying it cannot be ignored and the actions are a consequence of the administration's weakness and resolution. they slammed both administrations for the lack of action and called on trump to speak out against assad. >> the hearing said they would arm the syrian army and dedicate ourselves to the removal and will not sit by and watch chemical weapons slaughtering innocent women and children. i h. it's opened up a whole new world for me. ♪ there's nothing more than my vacation.me so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someon

senators led the way. they are among a larger number who wanted to pass meaningful legislation is your, but unfortunately, but were not able to do some. i. i will be pleased to take questions. >> how about next year, one of the prospects next year or the year after? is. mitchell: i believe it inevitable that comprehensive health care reform will be enacted. 10 will recall that it took years or more to pass medicare. and there was great deal of opposition to it. it was not until after the decisive election of 1964 that it finally was enacted. and i believe that the same thing will happen in notably -- inevitably on health care reform. i do not knowing cannot say whether it will be next year or the year after. obviously, many factors will contribute to that, but i believe, given the situation with respect to health insurance and health financing, especially that action is inevitable. >> your democratic colleagues and democratic candidates for tofice to use this to blame, use this in the election six weeks fr

effective work was done in the senate labor committee under senator kennedy's leadership and in the senate finance committee under senator moynihan's leadership. senator wofford, senator daschle, and senator rockefeller among democratic senators led the way, and senator chafee among republican senators led the way. they are among a larger number who wanted to pass meaningful legislation this year, but unfortunately, we were not able to do. i will be pleased to take questions. >> how about next year? what do you think the prospects are for next year or the year after? george mitchell: i believe it is inevitable that comprehensive health care reform will be enacted. you will recall that it took 10 years or more to pass medicare. and there was a great deal of opposition to it. it was not until after the decisive election of 1964 that it finally was enacted. and i believe that the same thing will happen inevitably on health care reform. i do not know and cannot say whether it will be next year or the year after. obviously, many factors will contribute to that, but i believe, given the situatio

the full senate will then take it up. majority leader mcconnell has announced a plan to hold a final confirmation vote friday next week, april 7. you can watch that live. our senate coverage is on c-span2. you can also watch on c-span.org and listen on the c-span radio app. about 10 minutes from now, we will show your remarks from this past week on the senate floor regarding the neil gorsuch supreme court nomination. again, 3:00 p.m. today, 10 minutes from now, here on c-span. video competition. this year, students told us the most urgent issue for the president and congress. our second prize middle school winner is a seventh grader from miami, florida, a student who believes cyber security is an urgent issue, and her , "cyberary is entitled security, the safety of our ation." take a look. >> we all use technology every day as part of our lives. don't you love using the web to contact friends? what about when websites are off-line or your computer shuts down or your phone stops working? situations like these have serious

the senators win it. 3-2 in overtime. coming up next except on the west coast, it's your local news. tonight at 7:00 eastern on nbcsn, it's the capitals and the maple leafs in game 6. tonight on nbc starting at 8:00, 7:00 central, older episodes of little big shots, chicago justice and shades of blue. for pierre mcguire and our crew, this is kenny albert. thanks for watching the stanley cup playoffs presented by geico. so long from boston. >>> we have breaking news out of lancaster county. an earthquake shook the lancaster millersville area about an hour ago. united states geological survey confirms to nbc 10 it was a 2.3 magnitude earthquake and to put that in perspective the usgs says it's the equivalent of a passing truck. >>> other news tonight, another deadly crash on the boulevard has claimed the life of a 69-year-old man. it happened in northeast philadelphia in the southbound lanes at the intersection of roosevelt boulevard and smiley road. and that's where nbc 10's drew smith is live tonight with the latest devel

the house and the senate in session today. lawmakers will recess this weekend for a two-week easter passover break, returned just in time to focus on another big issue, passing a spending bill april 28 is the deadline for that. if they do not, there is a threat of a government shutdown. let's go to our facebook page. you also sharing your comments. -- a lot of you also sharing your comments. that is in reference to a story that broke yesterday on politico.com. some passages from neil gorsuch were verbatim from earlier pieces of work. jersey,ckson, new republican line. thanks for waiting. caller: good morning. how are you doing? e, thank you.k youne caller: it is nerve-racking watching everybody complain. democrats talking out of both sides of their mouth. republicans arguing. all judges are supposed to follow the law. on a supreme court, there should not be republicans or democrats or anything like that. you are supposed to follow the law. you are not supposed to legislate. given a law argument in front of them. is that a ruli

in the senate, the democrats. and in particular, senator schumer, convinced his colleagues after bush 43 got elected to start filibustering judges. >> chris: will there be a confirmation vote by friday? >> senator mcconnell: yes. we will confirm judge gorsuch this week. >> chris: secondly, do you have the eight democratic votes, as we said here today to avoid a filibuster? >> senator mcconnell: i don't think we know. there are democrats who have not yet announced their position. in the course of the week, what you ask me will become revealed by announcements of democrats who have not yet said what they will do. >> chris: you said that he will be confirmed one way or the other, so does that mean if you can stop a filibuster that you will go to the nuclear option and change the senate rules so that you can cut off debate with 51 votes and confirm him? >> senator mcconnell: what i'm telling you is that judge gorsuch is going to be confirmed. the way in which that occurs is in the hands of the democratic minority. i t

the senate. what is going on with this nomination fight? guest: it is kind of unlike anything in history, because you have this working month absence since justice salida died, and you have -- justice antonin scalia died, and you have this for-four split on the court. anthony kennedy is sort of the one swing vote. theyou have the stakes of fate of the court at play. because democrats are going to ,o ahead and filibuster gorsuch which we found out yesterday that they have at least 41 or 42 and maybe more coming on board -- the republican retaliation is going to be to go to the "nuclear option" as insiders have called it for the past 10 or 12 years. they are going to sort of blowup the last bit of filibustering you are allowed to do at the super majority level of 60 votes. they will bring that number down to 51 for supreme court nominations to get him onto the court. in one fell swoop, republicans will take control of the court, and they will also set a precedent for decades to come that is going t

barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. will lead the senate in prayer. . >> let us pray. lorded of popes me with us mitt but with the military response but to abuse the price for freedom? and contain it to provide lawmakers with opportunities to serve the both serve you and country. bestow upon them of blessings of one good example is his view can be certain of the old the mitt tramp be back with then less evening the vice president notified via the of chemical weapons against his own people through military action.. the action was taken to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again. i support both the actions and the objective. the planning of this operation was clearly will contend taken against the airfield of which they were used and but to have that emerge commission deviant -- reveal with the institution said of everett be what traditionally with the attention of all senators to have a briefing on this matter later today isn't and he fell when moved to the confirmation because surely he will make and over the last half century.or this the last resort ridley

senate democrats soon became the majority in the senate due to then-senator jeff ford -- jeffords party switch, the current democratic leader used his position on the judiciary committee to hold a hearing on whether ideology should matter in the confirmation process. now, mr. president, it won't surprise you that the conclusion he and his colleagues reached was that it should so they killed in committee, either through inaction or via committee vote, qualified nominees who did not fit their ideology. i know because i was on the committee then. 18 months later our democratic colleagues lost control of the senate and therefore control of the judiciary committee. our colleague, the current democratic leader, again, took center stage. new york times noted that over the last two years mr. schumer has used almost every maneuver available to the senate judiciary committee to block the appointment. to block the appointment of a bush administration judicial nominees. then in 2003, again according to "the new york times," he recommended using an extreme tactic, the filibuster, to block it. mr. sc

this is a huge change in the senate and we have to remember the senate and the u.s. congress is supposed to be the slower, more deliberative and intellectual of the two houses where the minority party has more of a say and more they way -- -- more of a sway in the u.s. congress, now with the change of procedures, we are seeing the senate become more like the house of representatives where we need a simple majority to pass things rather than a two thirds majority. it is a big day for the u.s. senate. brent: mitch mcconnell was saying they need to restore the normative behavior of the u.s. senate but what happened today certainly was not limited behavior. moving forward, can we give up any hope of seeing bipartisan work be the rule of the day? maya: it's will make it much easier for whatever party is in power to simply pass whatever they want without having to consult or compromise with whichever party is in the minority and the thing is, if and when the democrats ever take back the congress, they will then have very little incentive to reinstate these rules that were

the senate. it's about the seat affecting the outcome of the court because all you need is a simple majority. whether or not a lead to changing the legislative filibuster which would be the end of the senate, i don't know, but i don't think it helps. there will be a majority around here one day, a president of the same party, control of the house, and they would geton frustrated because of the other t side will not let them do everything want to do. and they will be tempted to go down this road of doing away with a 60 vote requirement to pass a bill, not appoint a judge. and that will be the end of the senate. we made that more likely byy doing this. it was more likely in 2013. ii hope i'm wrong but i think we have set in motion the eventual demise of the senate. but the one thing i can say on an optimistic note, that while i bow to change the rules for this judicial nomination, i will let every vote to change the rules for legislation. and the reason i voted to change the rules is i don't know w

, the folks the rent and spending committees in both the house and senate and both republicans and the democrats. i really think what you're going to see is this is the first real test of whether or not the democrats specific in the senate are interested in negotiating, interested in compromise. it was make clear to us in the beginning anything we did on obamacare repeal and replace was going to be on our backs entirely. there's not a a democrat who would take a vote to repeal president obama's signature piece of legislation from his term in office. we knew from the very beginning it had to be a republican all the go and that's what it is perceived as there when you talk about funding the government, there's an opportunity for us to work together. what we are focusing on is we have our list of priorities. won't surprise anyone want some of them are. we want more money for defense, build affordable, more money for immigration law enforcement. the democrats may have some other own priorities. it indicated making some of these payments for the obamacare subsidies is one of their prioritie

the nomination goes to the senate floor no matter what the senate judiciary committee does. presumably, it'll be along party lines, but if three republicans vote against him on the jewish judiciary commtee, it still goes to the senate floor. we have a lot of our people doing counting, and depending on which list, the democrats have 39 or 40. they need 41. they need one more, and that will force the so-called nuclear option which you and i have agreed is probably a little too much in the weeds for the public that just wants to know if he's going to be confirmed, yes or no. stuart: well -- >> and if they do go to this nuclear option -- translate, 51 votes needed -- he most certainly will be confirmed. not a single republican is against him, and they have 52. stuart: neil gorsuch will become supreme court squaws -- justice probably on friday night. >> the swearing in is symbolic. he will sign the oath before the swearing in, he acquires the power, and he can vote on the court. stuart what chance that the travel ban, which went all the way up to the appellate level, suppose it's

he was given 299 questions forse the record by democrats on the senate judiciary committee, the most in recent history of any supreme court nominee. judge gorsuch did all this with the utmost integrity, with transparency, and humility. yet here we are with the democrats engaged ince unprecedented obstruction, refusing to give neil gorsuch and up or a down vote.e the senate has only ever employed a cloture motion for supreme court nominee four times in modern history. n we voted on cloture when justice alito was nominated in 2006. we did the same in 1968, 1971,da and 1986. in 1991, clarence thomas was confirmed on a 52-48 about. and in 2006, samuel alito was confirmed on a 58-42 vote. in fact, when president obama was in the white house, republicans did not filibuster nominee. in fact, this body confirmed sonia sotomayor in 2009 by a vote of 68-31.y confirmed justice kagan by a roll call vote of 63-37 in 2010. we did not filibuster. let me remind folks. cloture is in place to stop debate, not to stop a vote. cloture was put in place to speed the senate up, to end debate and move to a

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you mr. president, very much. there are few moments in the life of a nation when the people are presented with a single choice that directly affects what equality before the law will mean for the next generation. the opportunity to grant a lifetime appointment to the supreme court of the united states is one of those moments. the next supreme court justice will break the 4-4 deadlock that has constrained the court since the passing of judge scalia and this body's unprecedented refusal to act on chief justice merrick garland's nomination to fill that vacancy during president obama's second term. before discussion the pending nominee's merits, we must consider this nomination in its historical context. chief justice garland was arguably one of the most qualified nominees to the supreme court in generations. after meeting with him and reviewing his record, i had no doubt that he easily would have earned bipartisan support and cleared the 60-vote threshold, as in each of presi

the house right now, if it passes, it will pass the senate? >> no. >> reporter: you're that confident? >> i don't think so. it is so bad for the average state, for the average working family, that it's very, very hard to see that bill. and by the way, i don't think it would ever get there, because the way they've crafted the bill, these are arcane senate rules, but it would fail the byrd rule. the whole fulcrum of the compromise, which says the states can opt out of pre-existing conditions will fall, as it needs 60 votes. >> reporter: . >>> he's come after you. called you the head clown. he tweeted that. called you a total hypocrite for meeting vladimir putin. >> i ignored them. i said before when the president flattered me it didn't matter. when the president calls names which he loves to do i guess, didn't matter either. i go by values. i will not oppose things as mitch mcconnell did so often just because the name trump is on it. he's got to meet us. it's got to have some of the values. >> have you talked to him? i talked to him more now tha

will the majority leader breakak the rules of the senate in orded to get judge gorsuch on the bench? my friend, the majority leader has said several times that judge gorsuch will be confirmed by the end of this week one way or the other.f what he really means when hewhih says that is, if judge gorsuch does not earn 60 votes in the senate, which is now the likely outcome, the republicans must underline must, exercise the nuclear option to pass judge gore's itch on a simple majority vote.dn't. i think the majority leader reasons that if he says that enough times folks will start believing that that he has no choice. but they shouldn't, it's aet premise no one should swallow. the majority leader setting up c false choice. support judge gorsuch or he will have no choice but to break the rules. maybe to the majority leader the nuclear option is the onlys option, but there are many alternatives. the majority leader makes up his mind independent of what democrats do on issue after choe issue.rganizations this one, he says he has no choice. if he has no choice because the right wing of the r

most important distinction between the senate and the house. this senate becomes a majority institution like the house. much more subject to the windsf of short-term electoral change.f no senator would like to see this happen so let's find a way to further protect the 60 vote rule for legislation. now, madame president, since you will soon become the ninth justice of the court, i hope judge gorsuch has listened to our debate in the senate, particularly about our concerns about the supreme court increasingly drifting towards we becoming a pro- corporate court that favors employers, corporations and specialhe anger interests overworking america. we all know there is an anger and sourness in the land because average people aren't getting a fair shake compared to the powerful. in many cases, the supreme court is the last resort for everyday americans who are seeking fairness and justice against forces much larger than themselves.nd are at a time when folks are struggling to stay in the middle class and are struggling as hard as ever to get into the

in the senate. i think that would be tragic. >> just to be precise, if you get that commitment that the next supreme court nominee if there's another opening on the supreme court will require 60 votes, you're going to step back and stop the filibuster this time. is is that right? >> i would be looking for an agreement from both parties that we won't change the rules. and that in recognition that judge garland should have gotten a vote and should have been cob sulation on who was nominated this time that on the next there would be a binding commitment that we will be consulted and democrats and republicans will work together to make sure there's a confirmable nominee. e we won't break the rules. we won't change the rules. we'll proceed as we should. >> we want the that commitment because this could be a historic moment for the supreme court if the rules are changed now, you have heard the criticism the senate becomes the house of representatives, simple majorities rule and that unique nature of the s

in the process tmay have changed the very nature of the senate. joining me now from washington is my colleague al hunt of "bloomberg view." he conserved the congress for a number of years. explain to us what happened and why it's far reaching. >> the senate basically changed the rules, their own rules oa majority vote, and said that they can confirm a supreme court nominee by a simple majority. and that could not be-- they did not have to invoke cloture against a filibuster. in the past, you had to get, up until 1975, i think it was, two-thirds of the senate if you wanted to break a filibuster, and since then, 60 votes. so the real-- the huge difference is for both future supreme court nominees but also for the senate. it means you can change the rules by a simple majority, and they can extend that to anything they want to now. >> rose: would the democrats have done the same thing? >> probably. ( laughs ). >> you know, charlie, i'll tell you why. this is a huge change, but on the other hand, it is simply a continuum. the senate, like all political

do whatever it wants in the senate. that's treal danger. >> the democrats who have said they vote yes, donald trump carried all of those states by huge margins. then you vt othhave the other democrats who are up in 2018. how strong will donald trump be? how strong will this energy be in my state not today and tomorrow but next september and november. >> i think this is a culmination of a trend going on for decades. you can argue going back to the defeat of robert bork during the 80s. these supreme court nominations have got increasingly partisan. both nominees are saying they had litmus tests. these decisions on the part of the senate which are supposed to be made with a historical lens look at decades ahead of you have with everything else in washington become a product of the passions of the moment. >> totally. >> but after the health care debacle, there's been a lot of talk about we're not tired of winning yet. yes, it's bloody, yes we don't know if the hangover effect could be going forward, but it does look like th

senate to be the same as the house. is the house such a great role model for leading in this country? i'm not saying that the senate is, but i'm also saying that there is some utility about having people having to reach across the aisle once in a while and try and bring people around to pass major pieces of legislation on bipartisan legislation so that people have a buy in. i'm not saying that the senate's been brilliant, but i don't think you throw that into it. >>> up next, the new legal battle for president trump that was connected to his campaign rally last year. can trump be cited for violence or can he be sued? we can invest in the things that matter most: making farmland healthier. cutting down on food waste. and bringing you higher quality, fresher ingredients for less than you pay at the store. because food is better when you start from scratch. get $30 off at blueapron.com/cook various: (shouting) heigh! ho! ( ♪ ) it's off to work we go! woman: on the gulf coast, new exxonmobil projects are expected to creat

senate because the senate just liked the name. and of course what that did was it got rid of preclearance. what's preclearance? preclearance said that those states who had had a history of suppressing votes of minorities had to preclear any of their -- anyg laws with the justice department. these were states that had historical -- historically had a history of suppressing the votes of racial minorities. well, that gets overthrown. boom, states like north carolina and texas start passing new laws, voter i.d. laws. the second section of the voting rights act stayed so you could appeal to a federal court. but it takes awhile to work its way through. so finally in early 2016 , the -- a circuit court, fourth circuit i believe, ruled that north carolina had targeted african americans with almost surgical precision to suppress their votes. that's why you have preclearance. that's why you want preclearance. but in a 5-4 vote, preclearance was struck down. that's one 5-4 case. concepcion, 5-4 decision that allows corporations to force cons

in limbo in the senate. others are saying for a lifetime appointment, the nominee should have support. >> its decisions must ensure the rule of law is preserved for real people and our constitution continues to protect us from overreach and tyranny. that is why it's so important that the nominee of -- to the supreme court be approved by more than 60 votes. >> there's not a lot of good will these days between the two parties. we expect a show down on the senate floor unless a deal can be struck later this week. shep? >> thanks, mike. let's go to josh gerstein. he covered the nominations and confirmations of sonya sotomayor and elena kagan. this is a rules change but not without precedence. >> right. it would take away the 60-vote threshold any senator historically has been able to impose an option to matters being brought up on the floor. they needed 60 votes to move forward or was considered filibustered at this point. that was the rule for everything in the senate. as mike mentioned a few years ago, the dem

the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, senator burr. in new york i met with the undersecretary general with the united nations for political affairs who has responsibilities with counterterrorism. i also spoke to the council on foreign relations on the topic of islamic terrorism in southeast asia. during my visit, i was accompanied by chris maratis. my meetings, like those of bishop and senator kaine are a timely reminder of our relationship with the united states. in particular, the intelligence and security agencies. >> thank you, attorney general. >> thank you, mr. president. could the attorney general advised the senate what the outcome of these meetings was? >> attorney general. >> thank you, senator. mr. president, i can tell the honorable senators that the corporations between australia n agencies, intelligence and national security measures, both e cooperation remains unaffected by the change of administration in washington. the level of engagement between our agencies on counterterrorism, transnational crime, and the wide range

my preference would be to change the behavior of senators rather than change the rules of the senate. but here we are where a nominee who would have received unanimous or near unanimous support just a few years ago is about to be filibustered. my question is this. if we can't confirm a judge like judge gorsuch under contemporary use of senate rules, who can we confirm? it looks as if we'll move forward later this week and make the rest of the executive calendar subject to the same simple majority threshold. again, a change in senate rules is not my preferred outcome, but this rule change -- this rule change will simply make deviewer what was defacto prior to 2003 when filibusters were virtually never used on the president's executive calendar. now, i want to make clear my steadfast support to preserve the legislative filibuster. we need to distinguish here between the president's executive calendar that has traditionally never been filibustered or subject to filibuster and the legislative filibuster that is used frequently here to ensure that we work across the aisle. the framers of o