if they do, i'm confident judge gorsuch will

to finally, judge gorsuch the person. neil gorsuch is my friend. he has been from the day he took his role as my colleague in 2006. 2006.th i want to say that again and say it advisedly. because it means something that despite the many differences in our life experience, and our backgrounds, in our educationin and in our interests, judge gorsuch immediately and always affirmed me both as a person and as a colleague. i have watched him with all kinds of people in the courthouse, in social settings, and in the rough-and-tumble of judicial travel and duties. his unfailingly kind. he is thoughtful and he is empathetic to all people. his is the kind of dignity that reflects the dignity he accords to all people. judge gorsuch lives according to his values.pe for him, faith, family, community, nation, and hisfa beloved colorado define who he is. he is for me the gold standard in public service. so for all these reasons i urged the committee and the full senate to confirm judge neil gorsuch as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. >> per

judge gorsuch, mr. president, told us that he is not god, and that is true, but his humanity does not excuse him from the attribute of mercy. instead, his humanity should require it. mr. president, alphonse maddin sought the mercy of the law. the wong family sought the mercy of the law. luke, the autistic child whose school was failing him, sought the mercy of the law. and the man who had the power to see plain sense in their cases, who could rule in their favor and right the wrongs that had been done to them, as other judges did in each of those cases, that man, judge neil gorsuch, said no. i'm voting no on gorsuch for alphonse maddin and workers across the country, for the wong family and for others who don't want to choose between their health and providing for their children, and for the perkins family who loved their children just as they are and want them no less than the opportunities afforded to every other child in america. the american people deserve someone who sees average litigants as more

second, judge gorsuch the colic. it is my view that one of the important characteristics of an effective and efficient court is the level of collegiality among its members. this is not at all about getting along, to get along. it's about approving the quality of the work of the court by careful and respectful listening to varying and divergent views. participating and engaging in robust internal debate about procedures and cases, and factoring in the listening to the diverse views of each of the other judges. judge gorsuch is such a judge. his attention to the views of his colleagues informs his work. he has an acute sense of identify the circumstances where reaching consensus is the circu highest value, and, on the other hand those decision points where personal conviction and reason dictate individual judgment andd independent decision-making. inde judge gorsuch believes in the court as an organic and flourishing entity. these, the background and the perspective of all the judges on the court are important to thees

this is unfair to judge gorsuch. judge gorsuch didn't decide citizens united. he didn't decide hobby lobby or any other case my colleagues didn't like tracy made clear in no uncertain terms that no one speaks on his behalf but him. now they may dislike some of the cases which he offered opinions but in those cases they are not dealing with the way he interpreted the law. no one has attacked his interpretation of the statute, his approach to statutory construction. they are quibbling with the fact that they wish it would have turned out different on policy grounds that have everything to do with the policymaking arms of the government and not with the jurisprudential of the government. with these types of statements are damaging to our judiciary. if you don't like a judicial decision engage in the decision on its own terms and engage in discussion of how the decision turned out wrong or where it is that it departed from what the law requires. make a legal argument in other words. the courts announced reasons for their decisions. there is plenty of material to di

amy: so that is judge gorsuch. if you could respond to that, zephyr teachout, and also talk about citizens united. >> ok. look, we're going to see a lot of particular quotes pulled out. i think what we have to do this week is ask him about, first of all, what that means for his judicial philosophy. secondly, more broadly, we're not going to get him on a gotcha. to ain's well polished fault. he really is the sort of dream elite candidate in that way. that we are going to be able to, i think, reveal, what is underpinning him, who he thinks should govern in society. this relates to citizen united. in a concurrence -- this is a case where judge gorsuch decided to go out of his way and explain, here is what i think. in riddles versus sick the per, a case involving limits on campaign contributions. judge gorsuch said campaign attributions -- what out of his way to say you're one of the most fundamental he protected parts of our freedom. it suggested that we might want to apply strict scrutiny to campaign contributions. l

judge gorsuch, of course, had a chance. most of us waited until after the hearings because at the hearings, he had a chance to distance himself from these views, but he refused to substantively answer question after question. so if judge neil gorsuch fails to reach 60 votes -- which, by the way, the american people believe is the appropriate standard for a supreme court nominee -- it's not because democrats are being obstructionists. it's because he failed to convince 60 senators that he belongs on the supreme court. in that event, the answer is not to permanently change the rules and traditions of the senate. the answer is to change the nominee and do what president clinton and president obama did before they nominated people, consult the other party so there would be some semblance of bipartisanship. the majority's trying to make this a binary choice, confirm gorsuch or change the rules. not so. just not so. the idea that if judge gorsuch can't get 60, we must immediately move to change the rules is a false narrative. if

judge gorsuch: oh. [laughter] have on mylis: i wall that says "pressure is something you feel when you're not prepared, when you don't know what you're doing." what you'reknow doing and you have not exhibited one iota of pressure. that is what is going to make you a great. the respect you have shown when disrespect for questions were longer way was remarkable. i appreciate you being here and i appreciate your patience. i will yield back the rest of my time. that will serve as break after 7:00 tonight also doesn't replace date tonight. so you owe your patient wife a good dinner after all this is done. thank you. i yield back all of my time. the senator from louisiana. and by the way, you didn't get to talk much. but i promise tomorrow, you will get to talk a lot. judge gorsuch: i've heard myself speak more today than i am accustomed to. senator tillis: the senator from louisiana. center: your that close to being done. that close. i think you've done pretty well today. i just want on -- i just want to go

well, i'd like to take a moment to remind my colleagues of judge gorsuch's record now. as he said at his hearing, i've decided over 2,700 cases. my law clerks tell me that 97% of them have been unanimous. 99% i've been in the majority. they tell me as well, he continued, that according to the congressional research service, my opinions have attracted the fewest number of dissents from my colleagues of anyone i've served with that they've studied over the last ten years. to sum it up, more than 2,700 cases and a majority of them, 99% of them, and part of the unanimous ruling on 97% of them. it simply doesn't get much better than that. no wonder the a.b.a. gave him its highest rating, unanimously well equaled. so when we hear our democratic colleagues talk about breaking long standing precedent by mounting the first ever purely partisan filibuster to try to defeat his nomination, we can only assume one thing. this isn't about the nominee at all. it's about a few on the left whose priority is to obstruct this senate and this president whenever and wherever they can. months

the judge was neil gorsuch. amy: as confirmation hearings continue for supreme court nominee neil gorsuch, we will look at one of his most controversial cases when he ruled against a truck driver who got fired after he abandoned his broken down trailer in order to avoid freezing to death in subzero temperatures. we will hear from the trucker and senator al franken. companysurd to say this is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. that is absurd. amy: we will also look at neil gorsuch's views on citizens united and the $10 million spent in dark money to push his confirmation. then we speak to two victims of racial profiling in the nation's airports. when is a former nororth carolia police chief, the other is a lawyer suing the trump administratition over its targeting of sanctuary cities. both men were recently detained and questioned. we will find out what happened. all that and more, comi

and justice gorsuch's blindness to that -- judge gorsuch's blindness to that as a legitimate concern for the hearing and his lack of curiosity as to who is actually spending millions and millions of dollars in a political campaign to secure his confirmation was very disappointing. this is a vital issue for american democracy to face up to, the difference between popular democracy and olgarky can be between the public knowing whose hands are pulling what strings and dark money hides those hands. so let me play the video clip or ask to have the video played and then senator blumenthal will speak followed by leader schumer. [inaudible] >> a huge difference between you that i don't understand. the dark money that is spending money on your elections spent at least $7 million against him getting a hearing on a confirmation here. senator whitehouse: him being garland. >> and then now we have $10 million going the other way. and for the life of me i am trying to figure out what they see in you that makes that $17 million dealt worth their spending. do you have any answer to that? judge gorsu

gorsuch is full of baloney. host: i am guessing, joey, you would be against changing the senate rules. caller: absolutely! all the republicans try to do is change the rules when they cannot win. it is like the kid that owns the baseball, the that, and the bases, and he brings them to the field, and if he cannot get his way, he takes everything home, and that is exactly what we got. housee a guy in the white who has got a big mouth, go to hell package, and you cannot use that now because there's too much information available. i have never heard of these things. and people that are calling in and they are like, "respect the judge" -- when did he respect anybody? he is not respecting anybody. the independents, the bernie sanders followers, they say we are the hell on earth. no, we are not. ony wanted to get even november -- they did not get even, they went into a bigger hole. thank you for your time. by the way, you look like me about 25 years ago. host: i am sorry about that. [laughs] thanks for calling. comments

judge neil gorsuch. on the first telephone call judge gorsuch received about his nomination was not from the white house.se it was from the federalist society. one of those republican advocacy groups. eventually judge gorsuch it to the interview stage with president trump's inner circle meeting with steve bannon, reince priebus and president trump himself. those men each took the measure of judge gorsuch gave him theire approval to study for a lifetime appointment on the highest couro in the land to president trump who had announced numerous litmus test for judicialap nominations appeared area satisfied with neil gorsuch as his nominee. i the present chief of staff reince priebus said and i quote neil gorsuch represents the type of judge that has the vision of donald trump closed quote. there is certainly no political certainty and that the dilation but after judge gorsuch's phoneician with amounts dark money shifted. national campaign costing at least $10 billion was launched to support the gorsuch thee

because what it means to justice -- judge gorsuch, soon to be justice gorsuch is this. to be a good and faithful judge. it seems to me that the separation of legislative and judicial powers isn't just a formality dictated by the constitution. neither is it just about ensuring that two institutions with basically identical functions are balanced one against the other. to the founders the legislative and judicial powers were disfint by nature -- distint by nature and their separation is one of the most important liberty devices of constitutional design, an independent right ever the people essential to the preservation of all other rights, later enumerated in the constitution and its amendments. now consider if we allowed the judge to act like a legislator unconstrained by the bicameralism and presentment hurd hims of article one, the judge would need only his own vote or those of just a few colleagues to revise the law willy-nilly in accordance with his preferences and the task of legislating would become a relatively simple thing. notice how hard it would be to revise t

taking you now to cases and reasoning of supreme court nominee knee gorsuch. -- neil gorsuch. >> we welcome you who join us. for those in-house we appreciate that courtesy check that our mobile devices have been silenced or turned all, you are welcome to send questions or comments e-mailing speaker attorn leading our discussion today is elizabeth slatery, elizabeth rights about the -- of powers, manages the appellate advocacy programs, including moot cases pending before the supreme court. her work as an expert on constitutional issues includes testifying before the house of representatives and her commentaries have been shown on many news out lets, received her jd that george masons, and history from xavier university. please join me in welcoming elizabeth slatery. >> thank you, john. >> on january 31, donald trump announced his vacancy pick, judge neil gorsuch. in his ten years on the bench. judge gorsuch has written countless opinions and tries to the -- meaning, during his confirmation hearing, he explained each case deserves the complete attention of the judge without being diverted by

judge gorsuch ignored that test. instead he suggested that congress was wrong to require leave as accommodation at all and that leave of over six months was unreasonable no matter what other employees were given. you may believe that a judge's role is to protect dignity of all people and especially those of dissempowered minority groups or to remain faithful to clear intent of congress as expressed in statutes. either way judge gorsuch's opinions in disability rights issues do not meet that standard. >> thank you. senator hatch, do you have questions? >> yes. i'm sorry. professor turley. >> yes, sir. >> you have observed and written about the confirmation process for a long time. some of my democratic friends have been saying that the only way to find out what they need to know about judge gorsuch is to demand what justice ginsberg once called hints, forecasts and previews about his future votes or opinions in cases that will come before the supreme court. your testimony is very different. in your written statement y

i should point out, as i did, that more than 2,70 okayses that judge gorsuch -- cases that judge gorsuch has decided, basically all of them have been confirmed, meaning that everybody on the panel reached the same conclusions he did and they were approved or affirmed by the higher court, or certainly not reversed. well, i think our colleagues are making a tragic mistake by denying this president his nominee for the supreme court of the united states. if judge gorsuch isn't good enough for them, they will never vote to confirm any nominee from this or any other republican president of the united states. what would happen if that were -- if that view were to prevail? well, i think we would see the supreme court essentially become nonfunctional and shut down and litigants who were hoping to get access to a hearing before the court would have nowhere to turn. it's just not acceptable, mr. president. some of our colleagues remind me of the old story about the child who murders his parents and then comes before the court and asks for liberty saying that i'm an orphan. this is a situation of th

judge gorsuch has shown none. senators on the judiciary committee rightly asked judge gorsuch direct questions about this issue. i did so myself in my meeting with the judge. and while the judge repeatedly asserted his independence he could not point to anything in his record to guarantee it. judge gorsuch or for the judiciary myriad platitudes of this point, no man is above the law, he said. he said he was disheartened by the president's attacks on the judiciary. the president for his sake said that judge gorsuch didn't mean him. and everyone left it at that. if judge gorsuch had an ounce of courage, had shown a scintilla of an ability to be independent he would have said no mr. president, mr. trump i did mean you, instead he just tells us in general he is demoralized, disheartened. telling us is not the same as showing us, he is asking us to take him at his words but his record suggests he is someone long -- to assertions of broad presidential power. that leads me to my second point mr. president, that judge gor

again, judge gorsuch did not go that route. now, the question hobby lobby of course is whether the contraceptive mandate under obamacare requiring employers provide contraceptive drugs and devices infringe the refrigerators liberty of -- religious liberty of employers who had religious objections to being complicit in contracept e contraceptives in some cases and providing devices and drugs in the case of some other employ employers. many on the other side are trying to present judge gorsuch's vote here as though this is a direct statement of his view on abortion or contraception. no. he is enforcing the statute that congress by overwhelming numbers enacted and saying it means what it says exactly as he said in yellow bear the statute means what it says. little sisters of the poor, just last year, i'm sorry, in 2015, rather, the -- he joined a powerful dissent in that case again from a vote from a denial of rehearing en banc. a panel in the tenth circuit ruled an accommodation supposedly letting religious nonprofit organization

neil gorsuch was one of those 21. donald trump promised if elected he would nominate a mold in the justice scalia. hillary clinton promised a liberal judicial activist who would vote to undermine free speech, to undermine religious liberty, to undermine the second amendment right to keep and bear arms and this election was in a very real sense a referendum on the supreme court. that has no precedent, the degree to which the voters knew precisely what they were getting and what i would suggest to you the overwhelming election result in november as the american people chose the direction gives this nomination a kind of superlegitimacy. it is not simply the president's choice but it is the president's choice that has been ratified by the american people voting in a national election where they were choosing, do they want a liberal judicial activist or do they want a principled originalist on the court who will protect free speech, protect religious liberty and protect the second amendment? that nomination was ratified by

gorsuch. well, mr. president, i've had the opportunity these past three days to watch judge neil gorsuch in the judiciary committee, to review his credentials and record on the tenth circuit, and before that. i would particularly like to recognize the outstanding work done by every democratic member of the judiciary committee. they were just outstanding in questioning judge gorsuch despite his lack of candor and desire to answer. and i'd like to particularly call out our exceptional ranking member, senator feinstein, who's done a wonderful job leading that committee. now i've thought long and hard about this nomination and what it means for the future of the supreme court and the future of our country. what is at stake is considerable. the decisions we make here in the senate over the next few weeks about judge gorsuch, as on any supreme court nominee, will echo through the lifetime tenure of that judge through a generation of americans. discussions of the supreme court can get wonky and technical with

neil gorsuch isn't that judge. i also remember the woman that called from west texas whereom every clinic had been shut down. she was a single working mother with the children. b we helped raise money for her abortion, child care, transportation and lost wages. by the time she made it to the dallas clinic eight later it was too late for her to have an abortion in the state of texas.r we need judges that support our constitutional rights no matter our zip code. neil gorsuch isn't that judge. last year we took taxis to the supreme court and in its ruling the court called out these and other walls are what they are they create obstacles to care with no medical basis behind them. no women need to know if the rights are on trial they will be decided by justices that are independent and not beholden to an ideological agenda. judge gorsuch referred to answer basic questions on his stance for the rights to privacy yet we know in the planned parenthood case you cited with politicians using misinformation and false claims to

not judge gorsuch. when i worked for him he insisted each receive a written decision on his petition. each inmate he told me is entitled to an explanation he can understand no matter how far off the mark his claim. many we received without the aid of council and were difficult to understand. no matter the judge reminded we clerks that court add duty to liberally construe, that is to give the benefit of the doubt, to those who appear on their own behalf seeking protection of the court. the judge's concern for fair notice, i can recall many times that judge gorsuch wrote while he might have decided a case differently a panel already addressed the question. in deed i had the clans this morning to look back at the tenth circuit decision in andrew f., the case decided yesterday, reversing the tenth circuit. in that case the court expressly noted the more than dominions standard that judge gorsuch applied in thompson is actually from an earlier tenth circuit case in a line of cases that stretch from urban unt

think judge gorsuch's opinion shows just that they judge gorsuch ezra paisley reminded uy that while we as legislators may appeal to our own moral convictions in shaping the law judges in a democratic society should not preside cases based on their own moral convictions of their policy preferences. with judge gorsuch i think the shows we can be confident he will read the law as written and not legislate from the bench with regard to the separation of powers judge gorsuch as cautions against the governmental encroachment on the people's liberties which could occur should the political majorities of the legislative and executive branches be permitted to decide cases in the political unresponsive judiciary ranch be allowed to create or executeit policies. for my part i'm excited to confirm a justice who repairs the separation of powers is a central principle of our constitution. judge gorsuch is demonstrated his support for religious liberties. our country has valued the right of individuals to practice their faith according to the date tapes of their own conscience. he once wrote that

gorsuch was personally close to justice scalia. in a speech last year at case western reserve, he spoke of being on the ski slopes when he learned of scalia's death. >> i immediately lost what breath i had left. and i'm not embarrassed to admit that i couldn't see the rest of the way down the mountain through the tears. >> brown: he added this of their shared judicial philosophy. >> as justice scalia put it, 'if you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. if you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong." >> brown: conservatives and business groups like what they see. but liberals see a different picture-- one in which gorsuch could fall on the court's far right end of the spectrum. >> you know it really doesn't matter whether he's a genial person or a great guy to go skiing with. i'm sure all of those things are true. but what really matters is his record and whether he can be the independent justice that w

here this money to support neil gorsuch and his nomination. mole cell what to say it and see what the committee has to say, what questions they're going to ask him. quite frankly i don't see how we doesn't get, not nominate but confirmed by the senate. >> who are you with? >> i'm sorry? >> are you with a group? what do you do for a living? >> i'm sorry, i'm an internet just asked for the morning off to come over here. >> where do you entered? >> i'm interning with the young leaders program at the heritage foundation. >> and tell us what you like about judge neil gorsuch. what if you learned about him that you think you should be confirmed? >> i really like that judge neil gorsuch is a constitutional conservative. one of my favorite quotes find that came up recently asked a judge if the like all your decisions are almost certainly a bad judge. basically just speaking to the fact that you can have the law your weight and you can't just put your own feelings, your own emotions and what you think is the correct interpretation of the law. the corre

judge gorsuch, of course, had a chance. most of us waited until after the hearings because at the hearings, he had a chance to distance himself from these views, but he refused to substantively answer question after question. so if judge neil gorsuch fails to reach 60 votes -- which, by the way, the american people believe is the appropriate standard for a supreme court nominee -- it's not because democrats are being obstructionists. it's because he failed to convince 60 senators that he belongs on the supreme court. in that event, the answer is not to permanently change the rules and traditions of the senate. the answer is to change the nominee and do what president clinton and president obama did before they nominated people, consult the other party so there would be some semblance of bipartisanship. the majority's trying to make this a binary choice, confirm gorsuch or change the rules. not so. just not so. the idea that if judge gorsuch can't get 60, we must immediately move to change the rules is a false narrative. if

judge gorsuch will be confirmed. he will either get 60 votes or otherwise whatever procedural steps are necessary i believe within a month or two, neil gorsuch of the associate justice in the supreme court. nicole: for more on this, jameel jaffer at george mason university school of law will join us for this. also a former clerk for judge gorsuch. lauren: white house press director mick mulvaney describing the budget proposal. >> .net more money for defense, war to secure the border and law-enforcement and things like veterans affairs, veterans health care in private and public school choice and that is where we spent more money at the same time. the president was very clear he did not want this to add to the deficit this year. we added the $54 billion for defense. we took the money from other places. lauren: in order to pay for it. a detailed version of the budget released in may will lay out plans to eventually raise u.s. deficit. lauren: three u.s. soldiers shot and wounded by an afghan soldier inside a base that

neil gorsuch begins monday 11:00 a.m. eastern. you can see it live on c-span2. we look back to the opening statements of all 8 current supreme court justices at their confirmation hearings. the program includes remarks from senators introduced the nominees. this is under two hours. >>

judge gorsuch: i do, mr. chairman. sen. grassley: so if i ask you to tell me if heller was rightly decided, would you answer that question for me? i wouldrsuch: senator, rightly respond that it is a president of the united states supreme court, and as a good judge from you don't approach that question anew as if it had never been decided. that would be the wrong way to approach it. i will tellviews, you, mr. chairman, belong over here. i leave those at home. he said he wanted a fair judge, and that is what i want as a lawyer. i want to decide on the facts of my client's case and leave what he had for breakfast at the breakfast table. part of being a good judge is coming in and taking precedent as it stands, and your personal have about the precedent absolutely nothing to do with a good job of a judge. sen. grassley: let me ask you about citizens united. in this case, the supreme court held that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditure by a nonprofit corporation. do you agree with the decision? judge

judge gorsuch fit that bill. according to the denver post, marcie glenna democrat recalls two cases where she represented underdogs. i quote marcie glenn, these decisions are mostly focused on the little guy. judge gorsuch has a consistent record of applying the law fairly and his reputation among the laws makers is. of all of these reasons cited today, he will make colorado proud and will have a positive impact on generations to come. i look forward to judge worse at receiving a fair hearing and after that, working with him on both sides of the aisle to confirm his nomination. this poem is memorialized on the rotunda in colorado beyond the sundown is tomorrow's wisdom, today is going to be long, long, long ago. the wisdom of neil gorsuch, guardian of of the constitution will serve our nation well for generations to come. mr. chairman, committee members, thank you thank you, mr. chairman i want to thank you for allowing me to be here today and it's a distinct privilege to be here with my colleague, senator garner

neil gorsuch. i know his name and i worked with him for a decade. we practiced civil trial law together. across the united states. a variety of cases. and i'm happy to be here today to tell you what that experience might suggest to you and to the public about the kind of supreme court justice neil gorsuch is likely to be. unlike our president, who is going to be turned out either four years from now or eight years from now, he can't serve longer than eight years, neil gorsuch, who is being appointed, nominated and is confirmed to the supreme court, could be there for 40 years, 50 years. think about it. neil is only 49 years old. he's in great physical condition. do not let that gray hair dye fool you. he's been applying that since georgetown prep, just so he could be considered for a supreme court nomination. that's how he is. [laughter] obviously the best clue for what kind of justice neil gorsuch will be are in the 800 published opinions he's issueds a judge es cou united statrt o appeals to the

grassley: [laughter] judge gorsuch: -- judge gorsuch: [laughter] sen. grassley: obviously he doesn't agree with me on this point. she asked for the opinion. you said you hadn't given the subject a great deal of thought. want you to know that i think cup -- i think public access to the court system is an important issue and having cameras in the courtroom is an important way to improve public access. i know this isn't a popular suspect -- subject with some of the supreme court justices, as i just hinted, and as the senator mentioned yesterday, justice souter once famously quipped that the television cameras would have to "come roll over my dead body for that to happen to her go he's not on the courts now, so that's one less person in opposition. [laughter] i can, i can: respect that opinion, but quite frankly, it just happens to be wrong, from my point of view. onn you were introduced monday i was glad to hear him say that he wished the court would televise proceedings so that all americans could see what goes on there. is a view shared by a number of my

that's how careful neil gorsuch is. obviously, the best clues from one kind of justice neil gorsuch will be are in the 800 published opinions he's issued as a judge of the united states court of appeals to the 10th circuit and with us today are three distinguished former law clerks to judge, soon to be justice gorsuch, who are going to describe for you what those opinions tell us about his way of being a judge. i will tell you we've been fortunate enough, our little firm, to work with two of those three. sorry we missed out on the third, and neil has done a fabulous job early on in his tenure as a judge of really taking care to find the very best law clerks. they sent a lot off to the u.s. supreme court. he gets great people, helps him do a great job, and that's something you should take note of. on the supreme court, he's likely to do the same thing. think of it, neil has written 800 majority opinions. that's about 80 a year. the u.s. supreme court takes up roughly merits cases a year. so, you learn a lot from the opin

president i rise to speak on the nomination of judge neil gorsuch to serve on the u.s. supreme court. the core port and to reflect her mom that we have reached this moment.he it's been more than a year since the untimely passing of justice antonin scalia and bev morey of 2016. under article ii, section 2 of the united states constitution make president barack obama had a duty to make a nomination to fill that vacancy. he met that obligation by

one thing we don't know about judge gorsuch and justice gorsuch is if his personal views will dominate the analysis. it is clear his personal views are deeply respective of religion. he also has personal views that are deeply, deeply respective of libertarian philosophy. he believes the government should leave us alone. how he's going to emerge those views with ideas that the government also has a duty to see to it that we are equal and that the constitution guarantees both equality and liberty, and how he puts those two together are going to be the great puzzle and i don't think anyone knows for sure because this is a very smart man, with a relatively thin record, and a very, very careful background in which he doesn't tell you what he thinks and he's not -- anybody who thinks that he's going to tell the senators anything is having a pipe dream. these hearings -- >> cancel the special. cancel the special. >> these supreme court hearings all follow the same pattern. we all get excited about the chance to talk to the nominee, the nominee then tells us that he's not allowed to discuss an

supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. garrett tenney is live for us at the white house, how much resistance do we expect to see from democrats? >> not as much as you typically expect, democrats had been so busy keeping up with the other political battles over the past few months, everything from the confirmation hearings to the health care bill as well as the president's travel ban. but there has been a bit of renewed saber-rattling over the last few days by senate democrats, many of whom are still upset with republicans over president obama's supreme court nominee merrick garland who never got a hearing. they are threatening to return the favor so to speak, by filibustering, threatening to filibuster any vote to confirm judge neil gorsuch. republican leadership plan to get him confirmed by any means necessary, though, which is a not so subtle reference to willingness to use the so-called nuclear option. that would change senate rules so judge gorsuch could be confirmed with 51 vote instead of 60. that's why this morning

i'm calling about fred gorsuch. he is the son of ann gorsuch who ran the e.p.a. under reagan. she undermines the e.p.a. and cuts the budget by 20% to 30%, undermine regulations and subsequently was cited in contempt of congress for not producing records that congress requested regarding the sure super garding toxic -- fund, regarding toxic regulations. host: why do you think the actions of neil gorsuch's mothe is important as a consideration as he heads to the supreme court? or if he heads to the supreme court, i should say. caller: i think it should be brought up. she sounds like somebody that trump would hire. the fruit falls close to the tree. and i'm just wondering if he's also one of these people who wants to deconstruct the administrative state and then will be on the supreme court. that's all. thank you. host: cynthia, davidson, north carolina, independent line. caller: yes. i was wanting to call in and say that i'm a registered independent. i voted on both sides. i voted for democrats. and i have voted for republicans. i 100% am behind trump and his supreme court pick.