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

they are most similar to the situation of merrick garland. and then there were another seven under more difficult circumstances where the nomination did not occur until after the election, and the senate had very little time in which to vet and make a decision. but they did make a decision, each and every case until last year when the majority said we will not consider the president's nominee. we will not hold a hearing. we will not hold a vote. we will discourage folks from even talking to him. we will not exercise our advice and consent responsibility. that's the first big issue. the second big issue is that the nominee himself is from the extreme right. there was a chart that shows -- and we don't have it with us. maybe we'll have it later tonight. it is a chart that shows the distribution of decisions, and it has basically two curves with a big, kind of bell curves with a big gap in between. it goes up, it comes down. it goes up and it comes down. and in it reflects the ideological division of the court from decisions they have made. and

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

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

honestly, the democratic party is upset because merrick garland was not even allowed a vote. honestly, this seems like payback time with what is going on with corsets. i think the solution to this -- gorsuch.such athink the solution is double. i think if they are going to confirm gorsuch, then merrick garland should be confirmed for the next open sea. -- seat. the deal would be for democrats that the next vacancy will automatically be filled by merrick garland. so, if republicans get him confirmed through the nuclear option -- caller: without using it. without using it. there is no need for it. that is what i'm trying to avoid essentially. let's make a deal. host: thank you for the proposal. eugene is up next, a democrat. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i think that is a good idea good they could throw in all of branch -- a good idea. they could throw in all of branch to the democrats -- olive branch to the democrats. i thought gorsuch was suspicious and how he would not answer the questions he was asked. do nott see what people understand why de

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

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

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

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 us to step back from the brink. as the democratic leader i still hope that i can sit down with the republican leader and find our way out of the pernicious cycle. i believe as the leaders of the caucuses, it is up to us to try. the republican leader and i disagree on many things but we agree on the impor

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

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

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

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

no one knew how merrick garland would vote on citizens united. on the democratic side we were worried that he might sustain it. on the republican side they worried that he might strike it down and be a we the people justice. but instead of engaging in responsible senate action required by our oath of office, for the first time in u.s. history, the majority, driven by a powerful special interest, the koch brothers, decided to steal the seat. that's the setting in which next week's debate will occur over merrick garland. we've heard some very self-righteous words coming from the majority side saying -- look how qualified he is. how could you possibly say there is anything wrong with this nomination. i ask my fellow colleagues to realize the reality of what they are engaged in. that they have a responsibility and that every senate majority in u.s. history exercised that responsibility until last year, and it corresponds to this enormous growth of dark, secret money under citizens united entering our campaigns. it corresponds to the threat that the k

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

but not merrick garland. in a completely unprecedented abuse of power, senate republicans under the relationship of senate majority leader mitch mcconnell refused to confirm or even to consider judge garland's nomination. this unconscionable maneuver was nothing less than a dishonorable and dishonest effort to steal the seat on a supreme court for the right wing. senator mcconnell had the audacity to maintain that the people should decide who should fill this particular vacancy. by employing his dupe police us it strategy, he managed to shift this appointment from a president who had won the popular vote by five million votes in 2012 to one who lost the popular vote by three million votes in 2016. this crass, unprincipled manipulation of our democracy should not be allowed to succeed. anyone who cares about the proper legitimate functioning of our american democracy must oppose judge gorsuch's nomination, not because he is necessarily unqualified but because of the undermining of our american democracy by sen

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

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

merrick garland would be sitting on the supreme court bench. of course, over the past few days i've heard my republican colleagues announce democratic opposition to judge gorsuch by claiming that there never has been a partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee. but, mr. president, if the shameful and unprecedented obstruction that republicans used to effectively block president obama from appointing a supreme court justice wasn't a partisan filibuster, then i don't know what is. now perhaps my republican colleagues were concerned that president obama would seek to replace justice scalia, reliably conservative member of the court with a jurist whose view would place him or her on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum. that seems to be a concern that my good friend senator hatch expressed when he said, quote, the president told me several times he's going to name a moderate. but i don't believe him. president obama could easily name merrick garland, who is a fine man. he probably won't do that because this appointment is about the ele

harriet meyers whose nomination was withdrawn and merrick garland did not. mr. schumer: madam president, in order to allow president trump, republicans and democrats time to come together and discuss a way forward on a supreme court nominee that can meet the 60-vote threshold, i move to postpone the nomination to 3:00 p.m. on monday, april 24, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

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

the unprecedented obstruction of chief judge merrick garland is going to be a permanent stain in this body. in fact, days after the 2016 election, republicans who turned their back on the constitution for a whole year refused, even though they had sworn an oath to uphold the constitution which is advice and consent, for a whole year they p refused to advise and consent and have a vote on chief judge merrick garland. but right after the election, we're told now we must rubber stamp president trump's nominee. if we don't, it will forever damage the senate. i remind republicans we have a choice here. we can work together with president trump to find a mainstream consensus nominee. the process used when president obama selected chief judge merrick garland, he sought the advice of republican and democratic members of congress and was told this is a person who would get a solid majority vote. he said we reached out to every member of the constitutional committee, constitutional scholars, to bar associations representing an array of interests and opinions from all across the spectrum. and th

as someone said the nuclear option was used by senator mcconnell when he stopped merrick garland. what we're facing today is the fallout. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: this past week the american people have been exposed to a contentious debate here on the senate floor about the nomination of judge gorsuch to the supreme court. the american people have heard many arguments about the judge's merits and his shortcomingses. we've also heard senators litigate four decades of fierce partisan wrangling over the composition and direction of the federal judiciary. that debate, that long debate, has informed the current one about judge gorsuch. newer members may not remember all the details. friends of mine, like senator hatch probably will remember too many of them. still, the vote on judge gorsuch and the decision by the majority leader to move to change the rules has roped in all of that history. now, how did we get here? the truth is over the long history of partisan combat over judicial nominati

it refused president obama's nominee, judge merrick garland, any opportunity to be heard, which brings me to my serious concerns about this particular nominee. and i want to start with women's access to health care. president trump campaigned on promises to overturn women's constitutionally protected rights to make their own health care decisions secured by the historic ruling in roe v. wade. now, this president has broken almost every proposals a made, bus one he appears to be keeping, especially in selecting judge gorsuch, is his promise to undermine women's health and rights. judge gorsuch would have taken the ruling in hobby lobby to allow women's bosses to decide whether or not they get bill, control to an even more extreme result, and his deeply conservative record suggests he can't be trusted to stand up for women's constitutionally protected health care rights or access to care. in fact, it seems clear he will work to weaken those rights at every opportunity. mr. president, since day one of this presidency, women nationwide have made it absolutely clear they do not want to go b

president obama took the advice of republican senators when he picked merrick garland, a consensus mainstream nominee. president trump on the other hand ignored the senate and only sought the advice and consent of right wing special interest groups when making supreme court takes. he had to shore up his support in the higher grades so he said i am outsourced team the entire selection process to two groups who again are not consensus groups. they would admit that themselves the heritage foundation, the federalist society. lo and behold, the process didn't produce a nominee who could earn 60 votes. by contrast, justice ginsburg earned 93 votes. justice breyer earned 87. so mr. president, we are

first of all, merrick garland. they're furious he never got a vote. they called this seat a stolen seat. they also think he's been evasive in his testimony on questions like 9/11, the work he did as a doj lawyer and corporate issues. and finally, they're probably going to target women's health issues. remember, donald trump said during the campaign he wanted a pro-life judge, so the democrats say that gives them license to ask questions about that. but kate, at the end of the day, really, we're taking another step in changing the way the supreme court nominees are chosen. that's a big deal. not only for the senate but for the supreme court. >> absolutely. sunlen, ariane, thank you so much. keeping a very close eye. we'll be dipping into this hearing as we hear from important senators. joining me now to discuss, cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin is here, chief political analyst gloria borger and cnn supreme court analyst joan biskupic joining me now. jeffrey, on the makeup of this committee, what we've been listening to for a little over an hour now, 11

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

all of them unhappy that merrick garland never got a hearing. he was president obama's nominee for the supreme court. that leaves two. who to watch today, chris coons, not a fan if you listen to the questioning. but he's very concerned about what it would mean if it goes filibuster and then nuclear. and the ranking member, dianne feinstein who has been tightlipped about this, did some tough questioning for 20 hours. she says she'll reveal today who she is going to vote for. take a look another this full screen. because the magic number for the republicans, they need five democrat to turn. these are the ones that are undecided and it's unlikely, very unlikely at this point people on both sides of the aisle say they that will get the 60 votes that they need. what's at stake here? well, if you're one of the democrats who lives in a ste where donald trump won or won handily, there are people w have said, members of progressive organizations, we are going to primary you if you vote for kneel gorsuch. on the republican side you have one group that spe

like i said i'm only for the lot about merrick garland, but i doubt we hear anything about merrick garland began if hillary clinton had one. i will leave it at that. then they complained about by groups. federalist society, other nefarious organizations supposedly that are exercising their rights under the can't situation to speak freely. and to support a nominee who they believe will faithfully execute the duties of the off this. how outrageous. how outrageous that somebody would actually have the freedom to advocate on behalf of a nominee to the supreme court. i'll tell you the alternative that our colleague suggest is not the kind of america that i want to live in, one where the government decides who gets to speak and who does not get to speak. our colleagues may not remember, but i remember a judge gorsuch talked about the 1988 k. scott naacp versus alabama. they are, alabama site to get the membership list of the naacp for what purpose? you can guess for what purpose. what did the court hold? the united states supreme court said under the first amendment to the constitution committee

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

last year, when merrick garland was not even given a hearing. we all have our talking points. at the end of the day both sides own some of this mess but i'm a democrat, i think it is 80-20. republicans will think it is 80-20 on the other side. the general public may think it is 60-40 or 60-50. i am not sure that matters anymore. the question of who is at fault is not the most important question. the question is what do we do next? will the senate undermine its own authority and strengthen the power of partisanship? i say this to my republican colleagues, think about what you are going to do next. think about what this is going to mean the next time you are in the minority party because it will not be senators duckworth and cortez who can't even get a meeting with a supreme court nominee. it will be you. this is about the future of the senate and the supreme court. the nuclear option will mean nominees to the supreme court will not have to meet with or consider minority opinions. it will mean the senate habit of being slow, sometimes maddeningly so, but we know in the best inte

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

these past few weeks we democrats have given judge gorsuch affair process something merrick garland was denied. debate with an open mind. i think many of them wanted to vote for judge gorsuch's at theo outset so we consented to and participated in his hearing. but over the course of the hearing during which judge pract gorsuch's employed practiced evasions and judicial platitudes the mood of our caucus shifted. without so much as a hint about his judicial philosophy without substandard explanation of howru we used crucial to questions all we had to go on was his record. the more we learned about judge gorsuch's record the more we didn't like judge gorsuch has shown in his rulings and isican. sightings side with corporate interests are from averageutiney americans. wh he routinely challenges the legitimacy of the judiciary. while he made his today's effort to portray himself as top when moderate his record shows far from being the kind of mainstream candidate of the supreme court that could earn 60 votes he may very well turn out to be one of the most conservative justices on the bench.

merrick garland never even got a hearing. that's not the only reason to vote against judge gorsuch. but i'm just saying the rules are the rules. the democrats are using the filibuster that the republicans have used hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. those are the rules. you cannot whine and complain about one party using the rules as a minority party when the republican party did the same thing in the minority. live with it and move on. >> it's simply not true. the republicans have never use ed a filibuster to block a nomination. what happened with merrick garland is a long standing president in the last juror of a president's term you don't get the chance to fill in a very important 30-year term for a candidate. >> where did that rule come from? >> it's a long standing precedent. >> no, it's not, senator. let's go by the constitution. you said about president trump and i would agree. he was elected. he gets to nominate his person to the supreme court and it comes up for a vote. president obama was elected, he was reelected. he gets to nominate justice gar lachbd. there's

it was an unprecedented thing on the republicans' part what they did to merrick garland. and further they started arguing if hillary clinton ended up winning the presidency, they would never fill that seat. they would hold it open for the entire time she was president. judge merrick garland waited for 293 days for a senate hearing, the longest any supreme court nominee has ever had to wait. he waited and waited until his nomination ended without him ever getting a hearing. the supreme court stayed open for 14 months so republicans could wait until a republican was in place and they could get a republican candidate in that seat. we've never ever gone through a process like that before in this country. we've never filled a supreme court seat like this in this way. ever since justice scalia died, since the day he passed away, the process of filling this seat has ever been normal. today we found out who will fill that seat. republicans got rid of senate rules that have been there forever in order to get neil gorsuch confirmed to the seat. it's done. he will be sworn in on mon

then merrick garland. the fact of the matter is that senator mcconnell knew the odds were against republicans winning the presidency this last election and to some, it was kind of miraculous for donald trump to win. it wasn't miraculous to me because last may, donald 't trump called me and asked me to support him. i said you know what , i'm the kiss of death. in the lab and he said what you mean the kiss of death? i said i reported jeb bush and i supported marco rubio. my colleague in the senate and he had to withdraw. i said, so i'm the kiss of death. he said, i want you anyway so i became one of two senators who supported this president, this now president of the united states. and was gratified to see him win that election. i thought he could. i knew there was a great chance because i was going all over the country and i found people were not willing to say who they were for. and i knew darn well they were for trump . they just didn't want to admit it. especially democrats , but he got an overwhelming n

>> well, look, merrick garland is not before the senate. let's talk about that for a minute. everybody knew that if there had been a republican president and a democratic senate during the presidential election they wouldn't have filled the vacancy either. >> dana: absolutely. >> in fact, joe biden when he was chairman of the judiciary committee in 1992, a presidential election year, republican president, democratic senate, said that if a vacancy occurred they wouldn't fill it. so, look, everybody knew that vacancy was not going to be filled in the middle of a presidential election year. but merrick garland was last year. this is about neil gorsuch. he is the one before the senate. this is the first year of a four-year term of a new president. we dealt with two supreme court nominees and bill clinton's first term, two supreme court nominees in barack obama's first term. my party was in the minority both times. no filibusters. no filibusters. simple majority. >> dana: nominees in bush's second term as i recall. let me also ask you, sir, about then going forward. because as i u

gail has this sweet with merrick garland's nomination, who was put forth last spring. no action in the u.s. senate. we all want late-night humor, whether it is snl or jimmy fallon or some of the other late-night programs, stephen colbert. a possibility of a strike taking place in early may. thewrap.com. the writers guild of america has stated its intention to go on strike as of may 2 if it is unable to reach a new deal. the guild sending a letter tuesday. the threat of a work stoppage for the writers are big and small screens poses the most immediate threat to late-night tv, impacting the tonight show with jimmy fallon, snl, and jimm jimmy kimmel live. penny, your next, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, i would like to say, why won't they pay back social security? the took.ney that obama in his eight get all of thee houses fight him? host: thank you. this headline at the "l.a. times." let's go to anthony joining us from los angeles. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air. go ahead. why it's want to know the president make

something merrick garland was denied. my colleague came into this debate with an open mind. i think many of them wanted to vote for judge gorsuch, at the outset. >> martha: what do you think? for more on that, mike emanuel joins us. a pussycat chuck schumer on the whole thing. good evening to you. >> good evening. we just learned that the final confirmation vote on judge neil gorsuch is set for 11:30 a.m. tomorrow. earlier today, the nomination for the judge was essentially stuck with democrats responding to their base, which is demanded of a fight, fight, fight. if mitch mcconnell promised that or so it will be confirmed one way or another before lawmakers leave for easter recess. part of the republican page was that he was vetted by the american people. after all, president trump gave voters a list of names he would nominate for the supreme court. this was part of keeping a promise to voters and putting points on the board for the president. >> we said we would love the american people decide who would select the next supreme court nominee. and then, we would vote to confi

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