by the supreme court. out of 800 written decisions and 2700 votes cast, on panels with the 10th circuit. >> he's almost always been in the majority, some 99 percent of the panels he served on, he was in the majority of those opinions and 97 percent of those decisions were unanimous. so this is hardly some radical pick as some might have suggested.now, as the process that unfair? >> we heard a lot about this. a lot of my dear friends on the other side of the aisle will agree for sure, they feel that judge garland, the nominee of president obama in 2016 was treated unfairly. and i would simply based this observation and the american public can decide if this was unfair. this is a vacancy that came up during a heated hobby contested presidential year. >> and there is really no doubt that under similar circumstances, had the roles been reversed, and had a republican tried to nominate a nominee in the last year of his eight-year term, that a democrat majority in the senate would have done exactly as we did. and

nominees and the supreme court. and here's the reason. there are two circumstances where this issue might conceivably arise. either you have a democrat in the white house and a democrat-controlled senate or where you would have a republican in the white house and a republican-led senate. in the first, there's a democrat in the white house, and the party led by leader reid and leader in waiting schumer was in the majority, and if for some extraordinary reason senate republicans chose to filibuster the nominee, there is no question that a majority leader reid or a majority leader schumer would change the rules. now, i don't believe that this particular circumstance would ever arise because our side doesn't believe in filibustering supreme court nominees. i have never voted to filibuster a supreme court nominee, not once, and i think i have a pretty good sense of the rest of our caucus. our side just doesn't believe in it. it's not much more complicateed than that simple commonsense statement i just made. and of course

supreme court. what judge gorsuch has stood for and against over the course of his legal career, as we all go into this debate, will have -- we'll have to reflect on. the history of support in my view for secret, illegal, and unconstitutional programs is an unacceptable record for someone seeking a place on the supreme court. i'm reminded the senate again and again in this talk how the supreme court has rubber stamped the executives of our -- rubber stamped the excesses of our executive and legislature over the years rather than to defend individual liberty. that's the record. the supreme court rubber stamping the excesses of the executive and legislature rather than protecting the individual liberties of the american people. my view is it's our job as senators to ensure that the supreme court does not repeat the errors of yesterday, enshrining disenfranchisement and discrimination and denying equal protection of the law based on prejudice and political agendas. and i believe the only way to prevent

we want our judges on the supreme court -- justices on the supreme court not to be influenced by the politics around us. legislative branch, that's perfectly legitimate for us to take into consideration political views. the president of the united states is nominated by a political party. that's understood. but the supreme court, the justices on the supreme court need to leave their political views outside of their responsibilities. and i was deeply troubled after reading the opinions of justice gorsuch and his writings that he would not be able to separate his political views from his legal views, and i was concerned about whether he would truly be an independent check on the presidency. we know that president trump is testing the constitutional reach of his -- of his office. we have seen that in some of the executive orders that he's issued, and i have little confidence by his responses at the hearings that judge gorsuch would be an incident voice towards the president of the united states. so let me cite some examples to fill in the blanks on what i am saying. judge gorsuch challe

qualified to be on the supreme court. i remember vividly the day the late senator from massachusetts came to this floor and smeared judge bork as a man who would somehow turn back the clock to darker days in our nation's past. i have to say senate democrats twisted judge bork's words, misrepresented his record and did their best to turn a good and decent man into some sort of monster. in their campaign against robert bork, senate democrats sewed seeds of destruction that are coming to full fruition. next came clarence thomas. my democratic colleagues learned from their bork experience that fabrications and misreputations can bring down even the most qualified nominee and so they set to work on judge thomas. not satisfied merely with denigrating judge thomas' professional qualifications they set about to destroy him personally as well. i've been in the senate 40 -- i'm in my 41st year, mr. president, and never in all my time have i seen a lower moment than the way senate democrats treated clarence thomas. no baseless alleg

the supreme court to me is a sacred institution. we've had great justices on both sides, on all sides, as a matter of fact. we've had great democrat justices. we've had great republican justices. and no one knows how great a nominee is going to be until that nominee actually serves on the court and does the job that is so difficult to do as a member of the united states supreme court. neil gorsuch i have every confidence will be one of the all-time great justices for that court. he deserves confirmation. he deserves overwhelming confirmation. if we weren't in such a dispute tif -- disputeitive mood around here, if we didn't have so much problems with each other, he would be a -- he'd be an easy person to support. i hope we can put our politics aside and look at the man, look at his experience, look at his ability, look at his genius. look at his decency. look at the fact that he agreed with his colleagues on 99% of the cases coming before the tenth circuit court of appeals and most of those were democrats. look at those things and s

there has never been days successful filibuster of the supreme court nominee. judge gorsuch will be confirmed by the united states senate and the place as the next associate judge on the supreme court. >> i cannot say a much better than that hour to accredit colleagues -- democratic colleagues when you have the white house issued can appoint people to the supreme court. i can thank president trump more you listen to people wonder stand the law he could not have chosen a better person, paul ryan could not have chosen a better person to filibuster him shows a this is the end of the qualification standards of the supreme court. i'm sorry we got here but we are where we are i will vote to change the rules of war not be part of the senate this is not what it is all about. >> when the facts are against you and also heard a fair amount of that. this is the judge to achieve correct outcomes under the law. unable to attack him and any other ground for of the supreme court to legislate from the bench colleagues are determined to pound the table and all they can come up w

president, in 1973, we all know, the supreme court decided roe v. wade and declared that women have a constitutional right to control their own bodies. that decision has been mult multiple cases, as recently as last june. in his confirmation hearings, judge gorsuch refused to state if he believed roe v. wade was good law, and should be upheld. based on the statements and general philosophy, i believe there is a strong likelihood w that judge gorsuch would vote to overturn roe v. wade, and denied the women of this country the constitutional right to control their own bodies. this would be an outrage, and i do not want to be a party to allowing that to happen. in addition, under chief justice john roberts, the supreme court has time and time again voted is support of corporate interests and against the needs of the working people of our country. after reviewing judge gorsuch's record, i believe that he will continue that trend. in the case called trans am trucking, judge gorsuch argued that a trucker was properly fired by his employer for abandoning h

supreme court exactly one time. that's a pretty incredible decision making if one out of eight times that the court that is the court of appeals the supreme court in this case, decides that your decision did not meet your view. it doesn't mean your decision didn't meet your view of the law if you're judge gorsuch or your view of the constitution, and of course, after today his view of how you apply the law will go to the court with him. you know, the things that i said -- that judge gorsuch has said at the white house event when his nomination was announced. he said a good judge is not always happy with their opinions. what would that mean? i thought this was a reassuring sense in his job as a job. his job is to read the law look at the constitution and determine how the facts of the case meet the reality of the law. one of the things that makes this a great country to live in, a great country to work in, a great country to take a chance in is the one thing you can rely on hopefully is the rule of law. the one thing

we want our judges on the supreme court -- justices on the supreme court not to be influenced by the politics around us. legislative branch, that's perfectly legitimate for us to take into consideration political views. the president of the united states is nominated by a political party. that's understood. but the supreme court, the justices on the supreme court need to leave their political views outside of their responsibilities. and i was deeply troubled after reading the opinions of justice gorsuch and his writings that he would not be able to separate his political views from his legal views, and i was concerned about whether he would truly be an independent check on the presidency. we know that president trump is testing the constitutional reach of his -- of his office. we have seen that in some of the executive orders that he's issued, and i have little confidence by his responses at the hearings that judge gorsuch would be an incident voice towards the president of the united states. so let me cite some examples to fill in the blanks on what i am saying. judge gorsuch challe

not for president clinton's supreme court nominees in his first term, not for the supreme court nominees of the newly elected president obama either. as a "washington post" fact checked or reminded us again this very morning, once again there is no traditional 60-vote standard or rule for supreme court nominations, no matter how much or how often democrats claim otherwise. so i would ask our democratic friends, do they really want to launch the first holy partisan filibuster of a supreme court? nominee in american history? do you really think history books or the american people will look kindly on them for filibustering this amazing well-qualified and widely has respected nominee? judge gorsuch has earned an enormous amount of praise from across the political spectrum and from a wide array of publications all across ourled country. like the chicago tribune which recently called for his confirmation saying judge gorsuch has shown himself to be committed to the principle that judges are to rule on the law are written and applied equally to all. in "the detroit news" the paper said judge g

supreme court. it should be unsettling to everyone that our colleagues across the aisle have brought the senate to this new low, and with such an impressive nominee with such broad bipartisan -- support. judge is independent, fair, and one of the most impressive resumes you will ever see and has one of the highest ratings for the gold standard for rating judicial nominations. no one disputes his sterling credentials to serve on the court. and yet in the judiciary committee the democrats withheld support of him, the democrats said that they will filibuster against him, something that republicans have never done. no one in the senate republican conference -- no one -- has ever filibustered to a supreme court nominee. later today, colleagues will continue to debate the nomination of judge gorsuch. they'll discuss how completely unprecedented it would be for democrats to actually follow through on this filibuster threat, to actually block an up-or-down vote for this nominee and what the negative consequ

to the united states supreme court, and i can say this is a great honor. [applause] president trump: and i got it done in the first 100 days. that is even nice. [laughter] president trump: you think that is easy? this ceremony has special meaning, as justice gorsuch is filling the seats of one of the greatest supreme court justices in american history, and that is antonin scalia, who was a terrific judge and a terrific person. justice scalia was a patriot who revered our constitution. he was beloved by many, very many who are here today, and he is deeply missed by all of us. i want to at this time recognize his incredible wife, maureen, who i got to know very well over the last short period of time, and, maureen, these stand up. thank you very much. thank you and your family. thank you. [applause] president trump: americans are blessed to have in neil gorsuch a man who will likewise be a devoted servant of the law. over the past two months, the american people have gotten to know, respect, and truly admire our newest member of the united states supreme cou

every supremely qualified to be on the supreme court. i remember vividly the day the late senator from massachusetts smeared judge bork is a man who would turn back two days in the past. senate democrats twisted the words and misrepresented his record and his god a very decent man and to some sort a monster. and their campaign, senate democrats showed seeds of destruction coming out to full fruition. c next came clarence thomas.ns alex learned of the bork experience provocation at the misrepresentation can bring dowo the most qualified nominee set t to work on judge thomas. that was denigrating the professional qualifications and set out to destroy him personally as well. i've been in the senate in may 41st year, mr. president. never in all my time have a theme and moment of a senate was thomas. the baseless obligation, no law was too low for my democratic colleagues attention. judge

deserve a supreme court justice who doesn't legislate from thee bench. the american people deserve judge neil gorsuch to serve onth the united states supreme court. thank you, mr. president. >> and earlier on the floor of the senate confirming elena duke as deputy secretary of homeland security. commen

, the united states supreme court. many have come to the floor talking about his high qualifications, the fact that he has the highest a.b.a., the american bar association rating. the fact that he has the support of the 2008 cochair of the democratic national convention. the fact that neal katyal, a very high ranking former official in the obama administration supporting the confirmation of neil gorsuch. and we've had others come to the floor and express their opposition. we've had them come and express their opposition to an individual who has proven himself to be a mainstream judge, who has proven time and time again that he has the respect of his colleagues on the tenth circuit court, the bench of the tenth circuit as well as circuit courts around the cund and has the respect and admiration of the justice of the united states supreme court where judge gorsuch clerked for justice white, the last coloradoan to be on the nation's high court and where he clerked for sitting justice anthony kennedy. judge gorsuch has bee

supreme court nominees do that. and so we tried to look at his cases, what do his case that's he decided reveal about the man? and two or three cases came right to the front. the first involved the sad story of a frozen truck driver on interstate 88 outside of chicago in january a few years back. 14 degrees below zero, the brakes on his trailer freeze, he pulls to the side of the road, calls his dispatcher who said, stay with the truck, we're sending somebody. hours pass. he is now going through hypothermia, freezing and calls the dispatcher and says i have to do something. he says, you either drag this truck on the interstate and take your best chances. he decided to unhitch the trailer -- unhitch the trailer and gas up and warm up and come back. he was fired for that. seven judges looked at whether it was fair to fire am fons fons -- alphonse maddin, six said he was correct and one said he should be fired and that was neil gorsuch. the hobby lobby, who should decide the health care of thousands of workers? well, t

neal gorsuch to supreme court. rod rosenstein deputy attorney general, rachel brand to be associate attorney general. i want to explain how we have going to proceed in addition to the supreme court nominee we need to report out the nominees for deputy attorney general, associate attorney general. we all understand it is important for the department of justice to have senior leadership in place. my intention is to have everyone speak on the judge and then vote on his nomination then we will turn to rosenstein and brand. i will have a statement on both of them that i am going to put in the record so we can keep things moving regarding the judge for the most part everyone has already indicated one way or another how they intend to vote so there isn't a whole lot of mystery about how this is going to go at our committee meeting today. but regardless everyone should have an opportunity to explain their vote so everybody can keek speak as long as they want to. but my hope is that members can try to keep their remarks wit

the supreme court is different. nine justices appointed for life to the highest court in the land, in some ways an anachronism to our democracy. unaccountable, unelected sitting for life with the powerer to strike down actions of elected representatives and an elected executive, by issuing words on paper. without the direct means to enforce them, depending only on ameri respect and credibility from the american people. to approve nominees by a racistsservice and majority is a disservice to the court and to our democracy. the supreme court justices do more than just follow the law. they have to resolve conflicts in the law, and differences among the lower courts where they disagree. and, in fact ambiguities in the statute, whether it's a lack of clarity when this body is unable to reach consensus and in effect decides to agree to the extent it can come and leave some questions to administrative agencies which rightly are entitled to respect as they implement the law. confidence and trust areav essential, and we have

court or not be on the supreme court. now, it was certainly true when liberal groups favoring the garland nomination poured money into iowa to attack me last year for not holding a hearing. for that reason, i didn't hear a lot of my democratic colleagues complain about that money that could well be called dark money as well. and, of course, there are groups on the left who are running ads in opposition to this nominee and threatening primaries. they're actually threatening prior mayors against -- primaries against democrats who may not toll the line and might not help filibuster this nomination. for some reason, i'm not hearing a lot of complaints about the money that's being raised to make some democrats that might support this nominee look bad. and, as i've said, there's nothing wrong with citizens engaging in the process and making their voices heard. this is one of the ways that we're free to speak our mind in a democracy. it's been true for a long, long time. as i said yesterday in the committee meeting, if you don't

a supreme court judge. and so lowering the standard from the 60 votes designed to have a judge down the middle could lead to very different consequences depending on when various judges retire -- when they retire and who they are, where they are in the spectrum, something that none of us can predict. so it is certainly a -- a strategy that has simply just been asserted as, well, we'll just do it. not only is it -- does it have high tactical risks, but it just is another blow of the ax, felling the trees in the forest of the integrity of the court and the integrity of the senate. so it sets the stage for all these battles that are going to -- to come over future nominees. a pure partisanship short-term gain, grudges to be remedied rather than the advice and consent that's in our constitution. what was hammill -- what hamilton laid out because it would deter presidents from making nominations of people of unfit character. so i am really disturbed about where we are headed. there are many, many policy issues t

nominees and the supreme court. and here's the reason. there are two circumstances where this issue might conceivably arise. either you have a democrat in the white house and a democrat-controlled senate or where you would have a republican in the white house and a republican-led senate. in the first, there's a democrat in the white house, and the party led by leader reid and leader in waiting schumer was in the majority, and if for some extraordinary reason senate republicans chose to filibuster the nominee, there is no question that a majority leader reid or a majority leader schumer would change the rules. now, i don't believe that this particular circumstance would ever arise because our side doesn't believe in filibustering supreme court nominees. i have never voted to filibuster a supreme court nominee, not once, and i think i have a pretty good sense of the rest of our caucus. our side just doesn't believe in it. it's not much more complicateed than that simple commonsense statement i just made. and of course

supreme court nominees do that. and so we tried to look at his cases, what do his case that's he decided reveal about the man? and two or three cases came right to the front. the first involved the sad story of a frozen truck driver on interstate 88 outside of chicago in january a few years back. 14 degrees below zero, the brakes on his trailer freeze, he pulls to the side of the road, calls his dispatcher who said, stay with the truck, we're sending somebody. hours pass. he is now going through hypothermia, freezing and calls the dispatcher and says i have to do something. he says, you either drag this truck on the interstate and take your best chances. he decided to unhitch the trailer -- unhitch the trailer and gas up and warm up and come back. he was fired for that. seven judges looked at whether it was fair to fire am fons fons -- alphonse maddin, six said he was correct and one said he should be fired and that was neil gorsuch. the hobby lobby, who should decide the health care of thousands of workers? well, t

of filibusters against supreme court nominee is. among those who reject bid the alito filibuster in 2006 with the two democrat senators from my state, senator robert c. byrd and senator jay rockefeller. 72 senators voted to invoketing cloture on justice alito's nomination, but only 58 ended up voting for the final confirmation. the senate has a very clear history of rejecting the use of the filibuster proof court nominations. there's no justification for aoh filibuster on the gorsuch - nomination. neil gorsuch is a mainstream judge with the highest possible rating from the american bar association. he was confirmed by the senate without an action in the year 2006. his service on the 10th circuit court of appeals has earned the respect of his judicial colleagues and we have demonstrated the independents and respect for the law that the american people expect from a supreme court justice. i hope that at least eight of mo democrat colleagues will join us regardless of how they ultimately vote on judge gorsuch nomination. for his confir

on the supreme court today. there was no cloture vote mandate or requirement for a of -- for a 60 vote threshold as there was pushed by this minority. this issue of how you can be hand picked or that you would have some groups that would support you from the outside that somehow precludes you from being a serious consideration is not legitimate and everyone knows it. i've also heard the individuals out there saying he's for torture. estrogens privacy of. -- he's for torture, he's only for big corporations, he's not mainstream. here's the problem, when you actually look at the history, it is very different than that. of the 2,700 cases that judge gorsuch for the ten and a half years he has been on the tenth circuit, he has been overturned of his opinions once. 97% of the time his cases were settled unanimously, 99% of the time he voted with the majority and unless you don't know the tenth circuit like we know the tenth circuit in oklahoma because they are the circuit court for our state, the majority of the judge

-- confirmed in the supreme court later this week. gags the american people are entitled to an op or down vote on judge neil gorsuch. -- the american people are entitled to an up or down vote on judge neil gorsuch. show of hands a on who will vote for the nuclear option? do that.not going to >> no? [laughter] >> what you say to mayor portland in this situation? merrick garland -- garland? - >> i am going to do whatever it takes to get gorsuch on the supreme court. i'm going to do whatever it takes to get gorsuch on the supreme court. andre the republicans angry are they prepared [indiscernible ] -- considering what everyone said four years ago? >> there was not a filibuster of a judge at all until george w. bush became president of the united states. it was always a possibility but because of chuck schumer, because of a number of liberal up thiss, they cooked idea that you could establish a 60-vote threshold, a majority vote threshold. this is, in many ways after a long, painful detour a return to from thes quo back george w. bush pre

, the united states supreme court. many have come to the floor talking about his high qualifications, the fact that he has the highest a.b.a., the american bar association rating. the fact that he has the support of the 2008 cochair of the democratic national convention. the fact that neal katyal, a very high ranking former official in the obama administration supporting the confirmation of neil gorsuch. and we've had others come to the floor and express their opposition. we've had them come and express their opposition to an individual who has proven himself to be a mainstream judge, who has proven time and time again that he has the respect of his colleagues on the tenth circuit court, the bench of the tenth circuit as well as circuit courts around the cund and has the respect and admiration of the justice of the united states supreme court where judge gorsuch clerked for justice white, the last coloradoan to be on the nation's high court and where he clerked for sitting justice anthony kennedy. judge gorsuch has bee

we want our judges on the supreme court and justices on the supreme court not to be influenced by the politics around us.ke the legislative branch that is perfectly legitimate to takews into consideration. the president of the united states is nominated by the political party. that is understood that there is the supreme court they need to leave their political views outside of their dee responsibilities. and i was deeply troubled after reading the opinions of justice gorsuch in his writings that he wouldn't be able to separate his views and i was concerned about whether he would truly be an independent check on the we know president trump is testing the constitutional reach of his office. we have seen that from the executive orders that he's issued and i have little confidence by his responses at the hearings that judge gorsuch would be a reasonable voice. so let me cite some examples to fill-in the blanks on what i am saying. judge gorsuch challenges the doctrine in the case. he indicates judges rather than agencies should be administerind the wall. the long-standing deference to in

for the supreme court. at the end of yesterday's session when the rule was changed, some senators were engaged in high-fives on the other side of the aisle i am not sure why. i don't think it was time for any willing celebration. i think it was an unfortunate moment.the question is where would we go from here. we know the outcome of that would be on judge gorsuch this afternoon. it was preordained by the rule struggle we went through yesterday. but where does the senate go? where should we go? but we hope we can restore the 50 vote margin when it comes to the supreme court nominees. it may mean that judge gorsuch has an asterisk by his name. it is the only want to be officially approved with a majority vote. but i am hoping even if he isn't on the supreme court i know will not hold him back from serving the nation well. that is exactly what he wants to do. they hope that the senate would restore the standard of 60 votes necessary for the supreme court. i really believe that this is an extraordinary opportun

supreme court nominee. senate republicans did not enter this presidency with clean hands. and while many of the g.o.p. obstruction -- while much of the g.o.p. obstruction since 2009 had nothing to do with the nominees themselves, democrats' opt decision to -- opposition to gorsuch is based on his record. democrats have not said that they will oppose anyone who trump nominates. in fact, as senator minority leader chuck schumer has said numerous times, if gorsuch cannot earn 60 votes, the solution is not to change the rules but to change the nominee. it's clear that senate republicans have created an alternative universe worthy of a "star trek" episode. the brennan center for justice published an article by clara torres spalicy. neil gorsuch understands campaign finance and that's the problem. a supreme court prediction season. tenth circuit court neil gorsuch's nomination to fill the late antonin scalia's seat by president trump or by whomever he outsourced the job. i'm looking at you, federalist society and

to the supreme court. i'm also here today to share a personal story about an experience that nearly brought my life to an early end. traveling for work in asheville, north carolina, i found myself caught in a house fire. as the building quickly went up in flames and smoke, i realized that my only chance of escape and survival was to climb out on to the roof and jump from the third floor. i fractured my spine in four places, broke every rib on the left side that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks body, punctured my left lung, collapsed my right lung, shattered my left shoulder, and suffered several other serious injuries. i then laid in a ditch for two hours completely paralyzed from the neck down but fully if conscious waiting for the firefighters to find me. fortunately i did make a full recovery and in some ways i'm perhaps stronger now than maybe i ever was before. but were it not for the affordable care act i would not have had health insurance. and been on th

unlike with the lower courts, justices on the supreme court don't simply apply president of a higher court. they set the precedents. they have the ultimate authority under our constitutional government to interpret the law. justices on the supreme courtn should be mainstream enough to garner a substantial bipartisanh support. hence, why we didn't change thes rule, why would believe in the 60 vote threshold. hence, by 55 for 60% of all americans agree with the 60 vote threshold according to the most recent polls. to me, and i think to most of my friends on the republican side, that's not a good enough reason to escalate the argument and break the rules for the supreme court. second as i mentioned, i've heard my republican friends completed democrats are conducting the first partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee in history. so that's the reason they can justify breaking the rules. because democrats are the ones taking it to a new level. i can, i have just two words for my republican friends, merrick garland. the republican majority conducted the first partisan filibuster of th

the supreme court nominee. yesterday our democratic colleagues would have prevented an up or down vote that we are getting ready to have starting at 1130.ju for what? certainly it wasn't because the judge, his character or qualifications, background or expense. it's merely because so many of our colleagues across the aisle simply having gotten over the fact that donald trump won the presidential election and hillary clinton didn't., se before judge gorsuch was nominated, the minority leader, senator schumer said they needed a mainstream nominee. after president trump nominated a mainstream nominee, democrats then looked for other ways to make him to be some sort of extremist or radical, but they failed because are simply no evidence to justify those kinds of characterizations. for one, judicial experts spanning the political spectrum, including president obama's former solicitor general offered support. they had to deal with the facts of his record. during his time on the tenth circuit, he was involved in thous

i strongly support his nomination not supreme court. now again, that is a quote from president obama's solicitor general. mr. president, my final comment has to do with the fact that this is the will of the american people. in my lifetime, i really cannot remember when a presidential election elevated the issue of supreme court nominations to as high a level as it was elevated in this election. as a matter of fact, this election point-blank elevated this particular vacancy, as so many of my republican colleagues said exactly what i said, so close to an election. why don't we let the american people decide, not only the direction of this country but the composition of the supreme court. and, mr. president, the american people spoke. the voters who in my state of wisconsin spoke. they voted -- the 10 electoral votes in support of president trump and they voted to elect me to confirm president trump's nominee to this supreme court vacancy. so i believe it is our duty to listen to the voices of the voters, of the american people, the voters

swearing-in of a united states supreme court justice. in particular, i am honored to welcome to these grounds every sitting justice of the united states supreme court. welcome. thank you. [applause] trump: mr. chief justices, itellow is a privilege to have you here to join in this historic moment on this very beautiful spring day in the rose garden. spring is really the perfect backdrop joyful gathering of friends, because together we are in a process of reviewing and renewing and also rebuilding our country. a new optimism is sweeping across our land, and a new faith in america's filling our hearts and lifting our sights. i would like to recognize leetor cory gardner, mike -- where's mike? and mike crapo. thank you very much and for all your work. thank you. although he could not be here today, i especially want to express our gratitude to senator mitch mcconnell for all that he did to make this achievement possible, so thank you, mitch. [applause] i would like to give my appreciation to chairman grassley for conducting such a fair and

they pick the supreme court nominees. if you ask them, what do you use as a criteria -- i'll go back to a chicago story. he says in politics, there is a good reason and a real reason. what is the good reason that the federalist society tells us for their selection of nominees? it goes back to a speech by edwin meese when he tried to come up with definitions about what they were all about. he said they were rooted in the text of the constitution as illuminated who drafted, proposed and ratified them. he called this federalist society the standard of jurisprudence of original intention contrasted it with the misuse of history by jurists who saw in the constitutional spirit things like quote, concepts of human dignity, closed quote, which they turned the constitution into a charter for judicial activism, have we heard these phrases? judge gorsuch is an organizationalist. but if you are going to get into that what it is all about, read the words of justice brennan and said anyone who studied in the archives knew better than t

merrick garland should be on the supreme court today. or if not merrick garland, someone else that was nominated by president barack obama. a supreme court vacancy occurred with nearly 12 months left on his term, 25% of a term that he was elected to by the people of the united states. the constitution doesn't allow for three-year terms. it doesn't say the president becomes illegitimate once he hits the final 12 months. the framers of our constitution, they were hopeful that a president would be president for all four years. that last year was robbed not just from president obama but from the american people by republicans in the senate, when they treated judge garland with such disrespect. it would have been one thing to simply vote against him because you didn't want to let a president of an opposing party fill that seat. but to not even give him a hearing, to not give him a vote, to not even take meetings with him, which was the decision of many republican colleagues, that was a show of disrespect to judge garland that i don't think an

we don't need another corporate cookie on the supreme court. we've heard a lot of this election in this last election about a forgotten man. well, we see that judge gorsuch has forgotten the working men and working women of this country time and time again. we need a supreme court that respects the 99% good nodded judge that sides with the 1% 99% of the time. america needs just as and there will be no justice. there will be no peace with neil gorsuch on the supreme court. thank you. [cheers and applause] please welcome at my saxman -- emily saxman. >> hey, everybody. this is dean. that's a really great about him. this is the first rally. he's on doors and sitting around on white male privilege. he gets to work. he gets to work. yeah. i don't know what kind of protection is going to need. but enough in his access to legal abortion underscored the not protect them. i don't know who's going to to need access to bathrooms. this court will not protect him. i don't know if he's going to need idea of protection and education. i don't know if it's goin

supreme court exactly one time. that's a pretty incredible decision making if one out of eight times that the court, that is the court of appeals, the supreme court in this case, decides that your decision did not meet your view. it doesn't mean your decision didn't meet your view of the law if you're judge gorsuch or your view of the constitution, and, of course, after today, his view of how you apply the law will go to the court with him. you know, the things that i said -- that judge gorsuch has said at the white house event when his nomination was announced. he said a good judge is not always happy with their opinions. what would that mean? i thought this was a reassuring sense in his job as a job. his job is to read the law, look at the constitution and determine how the facts of the case meet the reality of the law. one of the things that makes this a great country to live in, a great country to work in, a great country to take a chance in is the one thing you can rely on, hopefully, is the rule of law. the on

supreme court. >> i understand that. but i go back to we're about to go in the situation where there's going to be this extra level of filibuster. let me ask you about that. do you have the votes to change the rules among republicans? do you have all 52 republicans ready to stand behind you if the democrats filibuster gorsuch, you have the votes to change the rules? >> what i can tell you is that neil gorsuch will be confirmed this week. how that happens really depends on our democratic friends. how many of them are willing to oppose cloture on a partisan basis to kill a supreme court nominee. never happened before in history, in the whole history of the country. in fact, filibustering judges at all was a rather recent f phenomenon started by your next guest, snar schumer, after george bush 43 got elected president. we didn't used to do this. clarence thomas was confirmed 52-48 the most controversial supreme court nominee in history. and not a single senator said he has to get 60 votes. >> you're somebody, though, that w

supreme court? what i've concluded and maybe the best analogy is you, senator lee, when you and i work on its antitrust matters and we try to find common ground, we have many different views and then we try to find area where we have consensus, the narrow ground where we have consensus and are able to come together at the moment. well, very many of the nominee's opinions for that is not what he did. he might be on the opinion where there is consensus, but then he tries to go a step further and take kind of, in my mind, a provocative approach come a broad ideological leap and that is what concerns me when you get to the supreme court level. with some of my other colleagues, i have sat through the last hour here and do i find it difficult to hear them spout righteous indignation about the senate rules? i do because when i hear the litany of those votes for the southern nominees 97-0, 98-era, the numbers for justice kagan, the number for justice sotomayor, the numbers for justice roberts, the numbers a

states supreme court. the practice and tradition was that presidents president of either party would consult with members of both parties before making a nomination so as to assure a mainstream nominee. tht and that nominee would he then mainstream even before his or her selection so that there was some modicum so that respect for this body as well as the cord would be preserved. my fear is the contagion of partisanship will in fact the core system as a whole, all of the nomination to the lower court as well as the appellate courts. we my hope is that we can avoid that truly could cataclysmic outcome. a nuclear explosion in some ways even more deafening and damagind than would be the one used are today. because our courts are then bulwark on our democracy and an attack on our courts are an attack on the only check we have against churning and democratic erosion and that is why the nonpartisanship of our courts are so important. the supreme court of all of our courts should be above politics and in fact tha

that same majority to the supreme court. so now all presidential nominees are back to where they were for 214 years. but i heard the minority leader, i heard my friend mr. schumer recomm recommitting ourselves to the protections for the minority in passing legislation. i think we can do that. and, frankly, i think this exercise of refreshing our minds on how legislation has always been handled in that way, i p believe has probably created a greater commitment to that, to a legislative supermajority to move forward with the bait than i think the leader of our friends on the other side, certainly the leader on our site have both said nobody is willing to back down on the challenges that the senate faces when where required to come together to get things done. the senate even if it was a majority vote, and the senate is unique in that voters essentially takes six years for every senator to have run for election after some new sense of the direction the country occurs, voters basically have t, say again and again, and maybe a th

we can't afford someone like neil gorsuch in the supreme court. case, he rolled against a truck driver whose life was in danger when he was stuck in subzero temperatures. [booing] >> by siding with the company that fired him for leaving his trucks of it he could seek shelter and save his own life. he sided with the company. in the environmental case involving a workplace death, gorsuch even argued that a company should not be responsible to the electrocution of one of their own employees. [booing] >> one of their employees that they did not even train. that workers name was chris carter. the company was only find $5,500 for his death, $5,500. judge gorsuch. that was an overreach, that the $5,500 fine for that man's death was an overreach and he sided with the company. an assistantnst professor at kansas state , who wasy, grace wong fired after 15 years on the job because she needed more time to recover from breast cancer. [booing] >> it was too accommodating for , too much, asking too much of the university to give her some more time to recover. e

supreme court. .. k in 2013 when the and everybody on told them not to do what they are about to do, but harry reid figured they would hold the presidency for the next eight years. and so, he really did not care. now, he is out of the senate. mitch mcconnell has every right to do what he wants to do. if you cannot get a simple majority an it's all you got to do is just let us have an up and down vote so now they want and up and down vote and democrats don't want to go along with it. they want to go back to the 60 when everybody told them not to do what they were going to do. because i've been watching this for the last 15 years on c-span, which is a great program. some days i get so hot i can't even take my blood pressure. but unfortunately, this isthe way the government is working now. i hate to see it . but there's no other choice that the republicans have to get the agenda through that the american people voted for in november. >> thanks for watching, a lot more to watch this week on this topic one