merrick garland, found unanimously well-qualified by the american bar association, merrick garland, a person who received bipartisan support for appointment to the dc circuit court of appeals, the second highest court in the land. when the majority leader comes to the floor to talk about how cooperative he has been with previous presidents for supreme court nominees he conveniently omits the most obvious reason our problems this week, the unilateral decision barring the majority leader to preclude any vote on merrick garland to fill the vacancy of justice scalia. i know judge garland, i met with him several times. he is a balanced, moderate, experienced journalist who should be on the supreme court. we shouldn't be entertaining neil gorsuch, we should be celebrating the first anniversary of merrick garland's service on the supreme court. the reason we are not, mitch mcconnell and senate republicans refused us that opportunity. they said no, you can't vote. their logic, the logic was wait a minute, this is the last year of president obama's residency. why should he be able to fill a va

merrick garland's record, judge garland had more federal judiciary experience than any supreme court nominee in our nation's history. the nominee put forward by president obama had more federal judiciary experience than any nominee in our nation's hint -- history. summa cum laude and valedictorian. after graduating he clerked for judge friendly for the u.s. court of appeals. he clerked for justice william brennan jr., united states supreme court justice. he was in private practice at arnold and porter focusing on litigation and pro bono representation of disadvantaged americans. he left his partnership for a low-level prosecutor position in the administration of george h.w. bush. in 1993, merrick garland went to the justice department as deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, and that's where he oversaw prosecutions in the oklahomas bombing helping bring timothy mcveigh to justice. he helped oversee prosecutions in the case against ted kaczynski, the unabomber. and the atlanta olympics bombing committed by eric robert rudolph that killed one person and injured 11

i can, i have just two words for my republican friends, merrick garland. the republican majority conducted the first partisan filibuster of the supreme court pick when their members refused to have hearings for merrick garland. in fact, what the republicans did was worse than a filibuster. the fact of the matter is the republicans blocked merrick keei garland using the most unprecedented of maneuvers.o now we are likely to block judge gorsuch because when testing on a bar of 60 votes. we think the 60-vote bar is far more in keeping with tradition and what the republicans did to merrick garland. we don't think the two are equivalent, but nonetheless in the history of the scalia vacancy, so they have to break the rules right now. that's an easy one. i'm the democratic leader. i can tell you myself that there are mainstream republican nominees who could earn adequate democratic support. and just look at recent history. and just look at recent history. and just look at recent history. justices roberts and alito, two conservative judges who many of us on the de

was it judge garland or judge gorsuch? whenever we -- wherever we place the starting point of this long twilight battle over the judiciary, we're now approaching its end point. we are nearing the final hour, and the stakes are considerable. after the cloture vote on judge gorsuch, democrats will have been denied merrick garland due to tactics we felt were unfair, and republicans will have been denied judge gorsuch because of tactics they think are unfair. our two parties have traded bitter blows in the tortured history of the scalia vacancy, the debate has been saturated with contradictions. but in a very real sense, even though each side thinks their side is more right than the other, neither side is happy with how we got here. and now we are standing on the brink of an irrevocable change to the way this body conducts business. as the majority leader once said, changing the rules is a bell that's very hard to unring. as the clock particulars steadily -- ticks steadily toward tomorrow, what are we going to do. i would like

host: and that it is not just about merrick garland? guest: chuck schumer has been saying that he did not support the little guy enough against big companies, but there have been enough rank-and-file democrats who had been brutally honest that what they did to merrick garland, i cannot forgive. some of the more moderate and easy-going democrats sounds completely radicalized on this issue, because they believe what happened to merrick garland that he did not even meet with some republicans let alone get a hearing or a vote. that has poisoned the well up there so much. he did not meet with them because of a lack of invitation? guest: yes, some of the republicans. now, some of the republicans back then were saying, "well, harry reid broke up the senate. if he had not blown up the senate, we might be willing to consider merrick garland." so, you get into this payback for payback for payback. now, each side is just throwing a punch and pulling a trigger that they previously said they would never do. but they just keep doing it. host: going b

i think they are doing it just out of resentment that judge garland was not put in. host: let's go to mimi in collegeville. an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. my view is directly opposite of what was just her. . think you should be blocked should be blocked on his merits. i think he has shown that he follows much what the democrats the said -- especially what female senator of minnesota said where she pointed out a number of areas where he did not seem to have any and that the four the little guy. in herluded the miners home city of minnesota. so, that is one, general objection i think has some merit. there is also just a lot of objections that he was unsympathetic to those who are not in power. that is the main thing i think is evident here. host: mimi referring to the questioning during judge gorsuch's confirmation hearings. the vote happening in the senate judiciary committee yesterday moving jeff gorsuch to the floor of the senate. it was 11-9 party nine -- party line vote. the regrets now city have enough votes to filibuster the nomination. we w

what they didto merrick garland i cannot forgive . for who is really one of the more moderate, morereasonable easy-going guys , has completely radicalized on this issue and he believes what they did to merrick garland, he didn't need this from republicans let alone get a hearing or vote. and that has poisoned the well up there so much. >> host: he didn't meet with them due to lack of invitation. >> guest: with some of the republicans so garland, now house republicans back then were saying well, harry reid blew up the senate and don't blame us for not considering merrick garland if harry reid had blown up the senate, we might be willing to consider merrick garland and so you get into this payback for payback and now each side is just throwing a punch and pulling a trigger that they had said they were never going to do so i think they just keep doing it. back to 2013 and harry reid comments on the senate floor. >> the change we propose today would ensure executive and judicial nominations. up or down vote. >> confirmation. yes, no. so w

and at that point merrick garland, the president could propose merrick garland for one of the seats, the first seat where he should have been duly considered to begin with and a judge for the second seat that is more to his liking off his list if you will. that would get us out of this quagmire. that would protect the credibility of the senate and it would protect the legitimacy of the court. so this article gorsuch and the senate's g.o.p. alternative universe is by paul gordon. to get neil gorsuch on the supreme court, senate republicans have moved beyond creating alternative facts. they've created an entire alternative universe. if gorsuch has earned so little bipartisan support that he cannot get the support of 60 senators as all six successful nominees of the past three presidents were able to do, mitch mcconnell is threatening to change the senate rules to allow supreme court nominees to be confirmed by party line majority votes. he and his colleagues portray judge gorsuch as mainstream. the absence of consultation as bipartisanship and themselves as victims of unprecedented and

merrick garland. he didn't want it on the d.c. circuit so they wouldn't let any of president obama's nominees come to the floor. merrick garland's nomination was not the first time the majority leader held open a judicial seat because it wasn't the president of his party. and that was not during an election year. at the time i spoke to my good friend from tennessee, senator alexander. i asked him to go to senator mcconnell and say the pressure on our side to change these rules after all these unprecedented number of filibusters was going to be large. i said to senator alexander, let's try to avoid it. but senator mcconnell and republicans refused all our overtures to break the deadlock they imposed. to be clear democrats changed the rules after 1,776 days of obstruction on president obama's nominees. my republican friends are contemplating changing the rules after barely more than 70 days of president trump's administration. we move to change the rules after 79 cloture petitions had to be filed. they

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 presidency. that means president trump will be able to get his supreme court justices confirmed with a majority vote but that also means the next democrat president will also get his or with ainees confirmed majority vote. question] rnible >> that was the status quo. >> do worry you will regret using the nuclear option for the supreme court j

garland. conservatives will scoff that they know he is as qualified for the job as anyone in the country. when mr. garland was floated as a possible choice for the supreme court in 2010, orrin hatch, the senior republican senator from utah, called him a consensus nominee, and so there was no question that he would be confirmed with bipartisan support. that's partly why mr. obama nominated him this time and also why mr. mcconnell denied him a hearing. he knew he couldn't prevent a senate vote once americans saw an eminently qualified and reasonable jurist testify on live tv. at the very least, mr. trump could follow president obama's example and pick a centrist, someone who commands wide respect and operates within the bounds of mainstream legal thought. that would be an appropriate gesture from a man who lost the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes and will enter office with the lowest approval ratings in recent history. the shameful, infuriating actions of the senate republicans won't

the decision not to hold hearings for drug garland the most consequential decision. -- judge garland the most consequential decision. how big of a deal was that for you? >> i don't think it is any more , only from one standpoint, it isn't any more consequential than what biden said in 92 or what schumer said before the constitution society 18 months before that it serves the vacancy. we would not be doing what we did in regard to garland if it hadn't been for the president that was set by those statements. the only thing consequential about this is there was an actual vacancy and they were anticipating a vacancy that didn't happen. >> what you think the next nomination which is probable under this administration will play out with the democrats and republicans? >> the same way, except you won't have the predecessor vote that we had to go back out to the re- rule. thank you. >> what's next for you on the judiciary? >> there will be a lot of nominations, both for assistant attorney general and for all the judges that can come up, but also hopefully working in criminal justice reform, j

do you have any regrets on how you treated merrick garland last year? >> no. the tradition had been not to confirm vacancies created in the middle of a presidential year. you'd have go back to 80 years to find the last time that happened, go back to the 1880s to find the last time it happened before that. everyone knew including president obama's former white house council thatthe shoe had been on the other foot, they wouldn't have filled a republican president's vacancy in the middle of a supreme court -- in the middle of a presidential election. so that clearly wasn't going to happen. even if the roles were reversed. >> i understand that. but if that was the rationale that was a rationale to vote against his confirmation. why not put him up for a vote? >> really? >> that is -- look, any senator can have a rationale not to vote for a confirmation. why not put merrick garland on the floor and if the rationale is you know what, too close to an election vote no. >> look, we litigated that last year. the american people decided they wanted donald trump to make th

host: you mentioned merrick garland. is the no vote just payback? know.: that, i don't here's the thing, we are a republic but we use the and iatic or democracy have always been against the filibuster. i have been against the stuff that when you have a person like merrick garland or this gentleman, gorsuch, you are talking about -- if they are in their 50's or 60's, they are going to be staying on for 20 or 30 years. that is going to be basically where the country is going to be going whether we like it or not. host: some democratic members of the senate taken to twitter to explain there are no votes yesterday. one of them was chris murphy of connecticut. he says -- jeff merkley from oregon -- senator ben cardin from maryland -- richard blumenthal, a democrat from connecticut -- one more from tom udall from new mexico -- currently according to the latest counts on this vote, four democratic senators are voting for gorsuch in his nomination. the question senators, joe manchin, heidi heitkamp, joe donnelly and michael bennet's. "the wall street journa

our nominee was merrick garland. mitch mcconnell broke 230 years of precedent and didn't call him up for a vote. it wasn't in the middle of an election campaign, it was march. second, then, now we -- looks like we have the 60 -- the votes to prevent gorsuch from getting on. now, that doesn't mean you have to change the rules. each side didn't get their nominee. let's sit down and come together. our republican frids are acting like you know they're a cat on the top of a tree. and they have to jump off with all of the damage that entails. come back off the tree, sit down and work with us and we'll produce a mainstream nominee. it will be -- one more point. >> hang on here. >> it will be a republican nominee, but remember, democrats voted for roberts and alito and he got both of them -- both got to 60 votes. >> but there are two democrats for neil gorsuch so there already is a bipartisan na jort that support him. two is two. it's more than zero. for what it's worth. >> yes. >> but why should senator mcconnell work with

judge garland was denied a hearing. many of my republican colleagues wouldn't even give them the courtesy of a meeting. he even got, and he never got a vote, which was a disgrace. and it is an injustice that needs to be remedied before i could ever consider voting for judge gorsuch. president trump could fix this. he could make a commitment to nominate judge garland to the next vacant seat on the court. it would be the right thing to do. i've been very opened that i believe the senate has become dysfunctional, but what the majority did last year was unprecedented. things went from bad to rock-bottom. being senatorial used to mean something. the republican majority has shattered that tradition for purely partisan reasons. in fact, the majority leader has publicly stated, and i quote in full, quote, one of my proudest moments was when i told obama you will not feel the supreme court vacancy, end quote. that is a violation of the u.s. constitutions requirement that the senate provide advice and consent. and now in 2017 sen

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

judge garland was denied a hearing. many of my republican colleagues wouldn't even give him the courtesy of a meeting. he even got -- and he never got a vote which was a disgrace. and it is an injustice that needs to be remedied before i could ever consider voting for judge gorsuch. president trump could fix this. he could make a commitment to nominate judge garland to the next vacant seat on the court. it would be the right thing to do. i've been very open that i believe the senate has become dysfunctional, but what the majority did last year was unprecedented. things went from bad to rock bottom. being senatorial used to mean something. the republican majority has shattered that tradition. for purely partisan reasons. in fact, the majority leader has publicly stated, and i quote in full, quote, 1 of my proudest moments was when i told obama, you will not fill the supreme court vacancy, end quote. that is a violation of the u.s. constitution's requirement that the senate provide advice and consent, and now in 2017 sena

i met judge garland. he is a good man and a good judge. but the decision by the majority not to take up judge garland's nomination was not inconsistent with the long-standing practice of filling supreme court vacancies after elections. this brings us today to why i'm supporting -- confirming judge gorsuch to the supreme court. there is no question about the appropriateness of confirming supreme court nominees during the first years of a president's term let alone the first three months. in fact, there is absolutely no justification for filibustering a highly qualified supreme court nominee put forward by the president that was just elected. that is just unprecedented. there was an attempt to use this tactic in 2006 with justice samuel alito's nomination to the supreme court, but he garnered sufficient bipartisan support so that cloture was invoked. today it appears we will not enjoy that same rational support. my preference would be to change the behavior of senators rather than change the rules of the senate. but here we are where a nomin

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

so from the time that garland, merrick garland was nominated, 293 days were left in the administration. for kagan consideration took 88 days. for sotomayor 67. for alito 83. for roberts 63. for breyer, 74. ginsburg 51. do you hear any numbers equivalent to 293 days? or let's look at thomas at 69 days and kennedy at 65. scalia himself at 85. rhenquist at 89. o connor at 33. they all fall into the same pattern. a couple months for the paperwork to be done, the investigation to be completed, the committee to hold hearings and act. but there's garland with 293 days, the senate failing to act. so this simply reinforces the pretense put forward that there wasn't enough time or that there was a tradition of not considering a nominee who for a seat that became available in an election year. because it happened 15 times previously in our history, and all 15 times the senate acted, every single one. so every argument put forward was phony, was wrong, was based on falsehood. it was driven by dark money, puppeteers of this chamber wanting to make sure that they could keep open their citizens unite

he named merrick garland. judge garland was supremely well qualified for the job. here's a guy who was his high school valedictorian, who attended harvard college on a scholarship, won clerkships with legal legends like second circuit judge henry friendly and supreme court justice william brennan. and left a partnership at a prestigious law firm to become a federal prosecutor during the george h.w. bush administration. he later joined the justice department where he prosecuted the men responsible for bombing the oklahoma city federal building in 1995. and he kept in touch -- merrick garland kept in touch with the survivors and the victims' families. and that's the reason why one of the very first republicans -- there are three announced at one time. one of those three, the first three agreed to meet with judge garland with senator jim inhofe of oklahoma, a staunch conservative, because the people of oklahoma had such regard for merrick garland. after judge garland was confirmed, the d.c. circuit in 1997, he earned a reputation for working with his colleagues from a

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

. >> i will tell you i happen to like judge garland very much but within the rules we were not going to confirm judge garland to deny the state supreme court until after the election most people thought hillary clinton would win. and then she could nominate a lover she wanted. all as like tim allen as a person yes we think he is a very fine judge the donald trump one and he appointed somebody else. that is the way the system works i was shocked they wanted to make a game of this? >> [inaudible] >> not really. [laughter] they came to the floor without the 60 vote requirement as did garland i am very comfortable there were in the same issues that we were in. as a liberal member of the court had passed away i am confident i am more than confident the smart money shooting picks somebody even more liberal. everybody thought she would have the chance to make the decision. i did not go for donald trump or obama but that is a disregard because i voted for their judicial nomination. i think gorsuch is beyond qualified so what do i tell people? what about his judges liable they do for you? i d

they blocked garland for an entire year. they made up a rule about the final year of president's term, appears nowhere in the constitution, appears nowhere in tradition. that's fine, they won that battle. why should anyone pretend it's anything of sheer will to power of what you could pull off, jim. why should anyone pretend there's anything more than that? >> they shouldn't. i mean, the crocodile tears coming out of the senate republicans at this point in time, it takes a cake. i hope just democrats are realizing, these guys aren't playing by the same rules as democrats do. it's about time to try and fight fire with fire. >> brian, here, ultimate, quickly on this, are they going to get the votes to pull off nuclear option. >> i think they will. i think they will because we saw democrats hold the line. i think they only lost three democrats in that vote for harry reid's use. i assume the republicans will stick together. >> thank you, both. >> coming up, reports of an attempted back channel connection between putin and presid

last year the garland situation. for a lot of senate democrats they're not done litigating this including someone like tom carper, a democratic senator who is not comfortable with the idea of filibustering, but believes that garland was mistreated. again, what was wrong with allowing merrick garland to have an up or down vote? >> i already told you you don't fill the supreme court vacancies in the middle of the presidential election. that's what joe biden said back in 1992. >> should that be the policy going forward? are you prepared to passion a resolution that says in an election year, any supreme court vacancy and have it to be the s sense of a senate resolution that say no supreme court nominations will be considered in any even numbered year? is that where we're headed? c >> chuck, with all due respect, that's an absurd question. we were right in the middle of the presidential election year. everybody knew that neither side had the -- had the shoe been on the foot would have filled it, v but that has nothing to

merrick garland was complete lee qualified and across the spectrum, people agreed. but because it was barack obama, republicans at sub won't even have a hearing. >> brian: there is no precedence since 1884 somebody being nominated in the last yea year. >> marie: >> meghan: it seems la desperate move. since the 1800s, it hasn't happened. it was a total hail mary pass and i remember watching it live here on fox. the comparison between those two men in those two situations is completely unfair. i think neil gorsuch, in 2006, had overwhelmingly support from democrats so what changed in those ten years? only the donald trump nomination. >> harris: the former solicitor general for president obama said great guy, great guy for the job this time around. we'll see what happens. we are watching now. republicans, will they vote to affirm the nuclear option and go forth and change precedent on how you place a supreme court nominee? it's happening right now umbrellas!! you need one of these. you wouldn't put up with an umbrella that covers you part way, so when it comes to pain

i have not forgotten the injustice done to it merrick garland, and neither have any of my colleagues. but we simply cannot move this committee and this body forward if we simply endlessly obsess over past grievances and revenge. and so, unlike the majority leader who announced before there was any nominee from president obama that he would get no hearing, i pledged to treat president trump's nominee, judge neil gorsuch fairly and to engage actively in this process, and i did so. throughout this process, i have kept an open mind. after reviewing judge gorsuch's record, after meeting with him twice, after participating in four days of very well-run senate judiciary committee confirmation hearings, submitting reading questions and getting feedback from literally thousands of people, i've decided that i will not support judge gorsuch's nomination in the judiciary committee today. i appreciate that judge gorsuch is an intelligent jurist and engaging writer. i admire his commitment to being a good father to his daughters and a good husband to his wife and a good mentor to his cle i even agr

was it judge garland or judge gorsuch? whenever we -- wherever we place the starting point of this long twilight battle over the judiciary, we're now approaching its end point. we are nearing the final hour, and the stakes are considerable. after the cloture vote on judge gorsuch, democrats will have been denied merrick garland due to tactics we felt were unfair, and republicans will have been denied judge gorsuch because of tactics they think are unfair. our two parties have traded bitter blows in the tortured history of the scalia vacancy, the debate has been saturated with contradictions. but in a very real sense, even though each side thinks their side is more right than the other, neither side is happy with how we got here. and now we are standing on the brink of an irrevocable change to the way this body conducts business. as the majority leader once said, changing the rules is a bell that's very hard to unring. as the clock particulars steadily -- ticks steadily toward tomorrow, what are we going to do. i would like

were judge garland. he got zero votes because they senate and the majority decided to sit on it for almost an entire year. something that we had not seen for a senate did not take action on a nominee and that way since the civil war. and zero, i would prefer to take senator lee's challenge and focus not on that today, but in that focus on this nominee has of. after a thorough examination and consideration of answers in the record, i have decided not to vote in either of the nominee. for me, his record on critical cases involving the rights of children with disabilities, campaign finance and preserving health and safety protections have led me to conclude that i can't support the nomination. now, let me make this clear. i did not expect that i would agree with every opinion he wrote in everything he ever said, but what i thought time and time again was a judge that clearly demonstrated the contrast between judicial approaches. one is the one we have seen with the proposed nominee last year, merrick garlan

we lost merrick garland because of the majority leader's unprecedented loc aid and republicans will lose on judge gorsuch because we are doing something that we think is reasonable and asking he be able to earn 60 votes as so many others have. we think the two are notbo equivalent, but in either case, we both lost. we are back to square one and republicans have total freedom of choice in this situation. no one is forcing them to break the rules. they don't have to treat the nuclear option as if it is their first and only option. it is a bold choice. to my friends on the other side, the answer isn't to change the rules.. the answer is to change the nominee is. presidents of both parties have done so in the past when supreme court picks fail to merit confirmation. i again, the answer isn't to change the rules. past nominee. the leadership division encouraged to see him pass and i believe he should seriously consider a different option. the senate, republicans and democrats should sit down together to come up with the mainstream nominee who can earn bipartisan support. we are willing to mee

was it judge garland or judge gorsuch? whenever we -- wherever we place the starting point of this long twilight battle over the judiciary, we're now approaching its end point. we are nearing the final hour, and the stakes are considerable. after the cloture vote on judge gorsuch, democrats will have been denied merrick garland due to tactics we felt were unfair, and republicans will have been denied judge gorsuch because of tactics they think are unfair. our two parties have traded bitter blows in the tortured history of the scalia vacancy, the debate has been saturated with contradictions. but in a very real sense, even though each side thinks their side is more right than the other, neither side is happy with how we got here. and now we are standing on the brink of an irrevocable change to the way this body conducts business. as the majority leader once said, changing the rules is a bell that's very hard to unring. as the clock particulars steadily -- ticks steadily toward tomorrow, what are we going to do. i would like

garland is a is good man. he is being badmouthed in the press. he has had one case overturned out of 2500 while sitting on the bench. the man must be doing and job,te job -- an excellent and he is getting badmouthed by the democrats and the only reason for that is politics. host: you say garland, but you meant neil gorsuch. caller: yes. garland is the one i was talking about that i felt sorry for him because he did not get put up, but there was a reason for that. schumer and biden were both involved in that. nobody should be put up in an election year because everybody wants to get out there and get reelected. john gorsuch is a man. an the -- judge gorsuch is excellent man. that is the irony of it all, which tells me it is typically politics. i think the man should be confirmed by any means necessary. host: thanks very much for the call. a couple of tweets. this is a story from "usa today." wars as president trump prepares to meet with president xi of china. joining us live on the phone is sarah west with. she is covering the story for the "washi

that is no disrespect to judge garland. joe biden told us he would do if a vacancy occurred in the last year of bush's 41's term. talking about a republican going to retire and here's what joe said. if someone steps down i recommend the president not name someone, not send up a name. if bush did someone send up, i go ask the senate not to with the nominee. that was the last year. and i think there is one time you are president of one party and someone is confirmed. the bottom line is, i don't think judge garland was treated different or unfairly than what you all would have done. and let me say this to your faces. if the roles were reversed, i don't believe one minute, you would have given the accommodation you are asking us. so this idea of somehow that if this happened in bush's last year, 43, you would have allowed him after the primary season was afoot to pick somebody and put him on the court and defile history is laughable. senator schumer led a whole sale filibuster of everything bush 43 in his first term. i was in t

our nominee when senator mcconnell broke 230 years of senate precedent and didn't even allow judge garland a hearing and a vote. now senate republicans aren't going to get the necessary votes for their nominee who was hand picked by the federalist society and heritage foundation and refused to answer questions about his judicial philosophy. we lost one, they lost one. we should now get in a room and come up with a compromise to avoid the nuclear option that so many republicans are reluctant to take. senator mcconnell, very unfortunately is setting the path -- is setting the senate on a path today but it doesn't have to end in nuclear disaster. if senator mcconnell is willingly to be reasonable and cooperate in a bipartisan way we can avoid the nuclear option. senator whitehouse? >> thank you, chuck. i think a lot of americans would be pleasantly surprised and considerably relieved if they saw the president and the majority leader of the senate and the minority leader of the senate come forward to announce a consensus supreme court nominee. nothing says that can't be done and i hope that we

was it judge garland or judge gorsuch? wherever we place the starting point of this long twilight battle over the judiciary, we are now at its end point. these past few weeks we democrats have given judge gorsuch a fair process, something merrick garland was denied. my colleagues came into this debate with an open mind. i think many of them wanted to vote for judge gorsuch at the outset. so we met with the nominee. we consented to and participated in his hearing. but over the course of the hearing during which judge gorsuch employed practiced evasions and judicial platitudes, the mood of our caucus shifted. without so much of a hint about his judicial philosophy, without a substantive explanation of how he views crucial legal questions, all we had to go on was his record. and the more we learned about judge gorsuch's record, the more we didn't like. judge gorsuch has shown in his rulings and in his writings to decide almost instinctively with corporate interests over average americans. he hasn't shown independence from the

so when you complain about garland, it's the arsonist complaining about fire. here's where we're headed. we're headed to a world where you don't need one person from each side to pick a judge. and what does that mean? that means the judges are going to be more idealogical, not less. >> we've got an all-star panel of reporters to take us through all the news of the day. kri kristin welker at the white house, and also joining me, national political reporter for the "washington post," robert acosta and national security reporter for the "new york times," matthew rosenberg. ca kacie, let's start with you. do they have to change the rules. >> he has said repeatedly over and over again gorsuch will be confirmed, and if that's going to happen at the end of the week, that will mean invoking the nuclear option. that kick-starts a complicated set of procedures on the senate floor. we're likely to see this reported out of the judiciary committee today. that means senator mcconnell tomorrow could begin closing the debate. it's called filing cloture in senate terminology. t

the first was chief justice merrick garland. he was not only well-qualified, intelligent, and capable, but he was moderate. president obama even sought input from republicans about choosing someone who was a mainstream jurist. he was more than qualified to sit on the supreme court, but he was actually someone who could bring folks together. his qualifications, his aptitude to serve and his moderate philosophy was not displayed -- was not reflected in how he dealt with that nomination. i believe he deserved an up-or-down vote, even if it was a 60-vote threshold, deserved an up-or-down vote. more than this, he should have had the opportunity to meet with senators, republican and democrat, like gorsuch has met with senators, republican and democrat. he deserved to have a committee hearing. he deserved to be voted on, up or down, in that committee. deserved to have his nomination come to the floors whether a 6 60-vote threshold or a 50-vote threshold. but he did not get that. the garland nomination was a bookend to the era we have b

merritt garland is a fine judge. he's a friend of mine. i went down personally to his chambers to chat with him about this, and frankly, it was every right of senator mcconnell and the republicans to say we're just not going to do this during presidential year. at that time it looked as hillary was a sure winner and we would have gotten a more liberal judge than that one but that was a stand on principle, not some new barbaric thing some tried to make it. >> there's never been a supreme court nomination held up on election day eight months before election day. there have been nominees that weren't confirmed during election years. >> that's when everybody agreed. that's when you had bipartisan support for them and frankly, and there's never been one, of this type allowed to go through. to be honest with you, the republicans acted properly within their procedural rights i think they did it properly and even though i like garland personally. it looked as hillary clinton would win. >> senator, why was is the right thing to not even hold, hold

it is all the more disconcerting that judge gorsuch witnessed judge garland's treatment. he was treated so poorly but now seems to feel entitled to the sea on the court even at the senate must change its president to give it to that him. i've already addressed this and my deep concerns regarding judge gorsuch's judicial record, ideological activism and championing the powerful over the powerless but it is worth going into greater detail on one of his opinions that is emblematic of this and that recently come to the four. in 2008, judge gorsuch heard what is properly referred to as the loop t case and in that case, the parents of an autistic child sought reimbursement from the school district and the court for specialized education because the school had not provided adequate accommodations for the child under the individuals with disabilities act or ide a. the case presented wrenching facts that are too familiar to families affected by disability such as autism. the child experienced severe behavioral issues in public and at home and his parents started advising the best

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

i understand the desire to take a hide for the hide of garland. i don't think it's going to help them. if donald trump is there and does it with 51 votes, it certainly lowers the standard in his mind. i only need 51 next time. >> greta, weigh in on what john mccain had to say. >> can i say, i totally agree with nicole on this. it's a total grudge match. you know, look, the senate, including senator john mccain and lindsey graham and the democrats, schumer, this is a self-inflicted wound. they are all moaning and groaning about how the senate is changing forever. it's changing forever because of them. this is a grudgement. garland should have had a hearing. now the republicans are getting a pay back. they are changing the senate. well, don't blame us. >> okay. we know that paybacks, you know, come -- we understand why people want to have paack. if they go nuclr, does it not change thetructure of the senate that basically it's going to look like the house? >> yes, of course. not the four of us who have done it. it's those moaning and groaning about

was it judge garland or judge gorsuch? wherever we place the starting point of this long twilight battle over the judiciary, we are now at its end point. these past few weeks we democrats have given judge gorsuch a fair process, something merrick garland was denied. my colleagues came into this debate with an open mind. i think many of them wanted to vote for judge gorsuch at the outset. so we met with the nominee. we consented to and participated in his hearing. but over the course of the hearing during which judge gorsuch employed practiced evasions and judicial platitudes, the mood of our caucus shifted. without so much of a hint about his judicial philosophy, without a substantive explanation of how he views crucial legal questions, all we had to go on was his record. and the more we learned about judge gorsuch's record, the more we didn't like. judge gorsuch has shown in his rulings and in his writings to decide almost instinctively with corporate interests over average americans. he hasn't shown independence from the