meantime watching the dow up about 9 points. hampton pearson is live for us in d.c. on this breaking story. >> carl as you said all signs point to merrick garland. i believe he is 62 years old. he is the chief justice of the appeals court here in washington d.c. described as a moderate and you heard in the stories before the break chuck schumer saying this is a guy that's a consensus choice for moderate republicans and democrats but of course in terms of the brewing confirmation fight that's ahead, number one with the republicans taking the position that it's not even likely he will get a hearing or even an audience with the chairman of the judiciary committee. all of those cards beginning to played out once president obama sends the name of this nominee to the senate for possible confirmation. again, in this political year, the supreme court of course has become part of the debate on the

campaign trail. in our most recent wall street journal nbc poll, 48%, a pl pleuralty of those said the senate should take action to a nominee to the supreme court that the president would send this year and 55% of that same sample said that eventually president obama's nominee to the supreme court is entitled to an up or down vote. we're minutes away from the president making his announcement and begins of course to make the case for the confirmation battle that lies ahead. >> hampton pearson in washington. we'll be coming back to you in a moment. for more on today's announcement let's bring in a litigation attorney in nixon peabody's new york city office. has written extensively on the supreme court nominating process. thank you for joining us. native of illinois, harvard

grad. was considered a contender when justice stevens stepped down. what should we know? >> so judge garland i would say is a consensus candidate as folks have been saying the last 30 minutes or so. he is known as a moderate. he's been on the d.c. circuit for 30 years. a couple of things really stand out. number one is that he was one of the authors of an opinion that said the guantanamo detainees cannot have civil trials and the second thing to know is that in all of his years on the d.c. circuit only 8 times did he overturn an appeal of a criminal defendant. what we're going to see is progressives that won't be progressive enough for those and for conservative republicans he won't be conservative enough for them. >> one thing that strikes me about him is the area c conservatives ding him on is gun

control. he seemed to be in favor of the d.c. handgun ban that was struck down by another court. in this kind of a political environment the republican base that's already said in polls it feels betrayed and that's leading their voting, could the senate even seem to be open to a character like that with that kind of voting record even if he's being touted as a moderate given that the second amendment has come up again and again. >> it looms large here and always does in every political cycle and the opinion that you're talking about is of course washington d.c. and scalia offered the opinion in the supreme court which struck down most of the handgun ban in d.c. and i think there will be some issues. obama was never going to nominate someone that republicans would be completely happy with and frankly that's not his job. i think on balance though he is a moderate candidate. i can see him in the vain of kennedy someone that goes some ways on some issues and some

ways in others. personally a principled jurist. so there will be discussion and there will be debate. there's going to be still problems as we go down into the midterms if there is obstructionism for someone that's really a very, very qualified candidate. >> we have seen obviously as people start digging through his decisions of the past, people point to his rulings as it results to criminal justice. do those lead to liberal, moderate or conservative in your view? >> conservative. 8 instances in 13 years which say long time on the d.c. circuit or any federal court in which he has overturned the criminal appeal or basically allowed a criminal appeal to go back down. so he is conservative on criminal justice. >> daniel, thank you. here is the president. >> everybody please have a seat of the many powers and responsibilities that the

constitution vests in the presidency, few are more consequential than appointing a supreme court justice. particularly one to succeed justice scalia. one of the most influential of our time. the men and wil that sit on the supreme court are the final arbitors of american law. they safe guard our rights. they ensure that our system is one of laws and not men. they're charged with the essential task of applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago to some of the most challenging questions of our time. so this is not a responsibility that i take lightly. it's a decision that requires me to set aside short-term expediency and narrow politics so as to maintain faith with our founders and perhaps more pornly

with future generations and that's why over the past several weeks i have done my best to set up a rigorous and comprehensive process. we have reached out to every member of the senate judiciary committee, so constitutional scholars, to advocacy groups and bar associations representing an array of interests and opinions from all across the spectrum and today after completing this exhaustive process i made my decision. i selected a nominee that's widely recognized not only as one of america's sharpest legal minds but someone that brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even handedness and excellence. these qualities and his long commitment to public service earned him the respect and

admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle who will bring that same care to bear on the supreme court. an institution in which he is uniquely prepared to serve immediately. today i am nominating chief judge merrick brian garland to join the supreme court. [ applause ] >> now in law enforcement circles and the legal community at large judge garland needs no introduction but i would like to introduce him to the american people he already serves. he was born and raised in my hometown of chicago. in my home state of illinois. his mother volunteered in the

community. his father ran a small business out of their home. inheriting that work ethic merrick became valedictorian of his high school. he earned a scholarship to harvard where he graduated suma cume lade. he worked as a tudor and stocking shoes at a shoe store and by selling his comic book collection. that's tough. been there. merrick graduated from harvard law and the early years of his legal career bear all the traditional marks of excellence. he clerked for two judicial appointees. first for judge henry friendly and then for supreme court justice william brennan. following his clerk ships he

joined a highly regarded law firm with a practice focused on pro bono representation of disadvantaged americans. within four years he earned a partnership. the dream of most lawyers but in 1989 just months after that achievement, merrick made an unusual career decision. he walked away from a comfortable and lucrative law practice to return to public service. merrick accepted a job as a federal prosecutor. took a 50% pay cut. traded in his elegant partner's office for a windowless closet that smelled of stale cigarette smoke. this was a time when crime in washington reached epidemic proportions and he wanted to help and made a name for himself going after corupt politicians and violent criminals. his sterling record as a

prosecutor led him to the justice department where he oversaw some of the most significant prosecutions in the 1990s including overseeing every aspect of the federal response to the oklahoma city bombing. in the aftermath of that act of terror, 168 people, many of them small children were murdered, merrick had one evening to say good-bye to his own young daughters before he boarded a plane to oklahoma city and he would remain there for weeks. he worked side by side with first responders, rescue workers, local and federal haw enforcement. he lead the investigation and supervised the prosecution that brought timmy mcvey to justice. but perhaps most important is the way he did it. throughout the process, merrick took pains to do everything by the book. when people offered to turnover

evidence voluntarily he refused taking the harder route of obtaining the proper subpoenas instead because he would take no chances that someone that murdered innocent americans might go free on a technicality. america also made an effort to reach out to the victims and their families updating them frequently on the case's progress. everywhere he when he carried the program from the memorial service with each of the victims names inside. a constant reminder of why he had to succeed. judge garland often referred to his work on the oklahoma city case, and i quote, the most important thing i have ever done in my life and through it all he never lost touch with that community that he served. it's no surprise, then, that

soon after his work in oklahoma city, merrick was nominated to what's often called the second highest court in the land. the d.c. circuit court. during that process, during that confirmation process he earned overwhelming bipartisan praise from senators and legal experts alike. republican senator hatch who was then chairman of the senate judiciary committee supported his nomination. back then he said in all honesty i would like to see one person come to this floor and see one reason why merrick garland does not deserve this position. he accused fellow republicans of trying to obstruct his nomination as playing politic with judges and he has since said judge garland would be a consensus nominee for the supreme court that would be supported by all sides and no

question that merrick would be confirmed with bipartisan support. ultimately merrick was confirmed to the d.c. circuit. the second highest court in the land. with votes from a majority of democrats and a majority of republicans. three years ago he was elevated to chief judge and in his 19 years on the d.c. circuit, judge garland has brought his trademark diligence, compassion, and unwaivering regard for the rule of law to his work. now circuit court known for strong minded judges on both ends of the spectrum, judge garland earned a track record as a thoughtful, fair minded judge that follows the law. he has shown a rare ability to bring together odd couples, assemble unlikely coalitions, persuade colleagues with wide

ranging judicial philosophies to sign on to his opinions and this record on the bench speaks, i believe to judge garland's fundamental temperament. his insistence that all views deserve a respectful hearing. his habit, to borrow a phrase from former justice john paul stevens of understanding before disagreeing. and then disagreeing without being disagreeable. it speaks to his ability to persuade. to respond to concerns of others with sound arguments and airtight logic. as his former colleague on the d.c. circuit and our current chief justice of the supreme court john roberts once said any time judge garland disagrees you know you're in a difficult area. at the same time chief judge garland is more than just a legal mind. he has a keen understanding that

justice is about abstract legal theory. more than a footnote in a dusty case book. his life experience, his experience in places like oklahoma city informs his view that the law is more than an intellectual exercise. he understands how law effects the daily reality of people's lives in a big complicated democracy and rapidly changing times and throughout this runs a common thread. a dedication to protecting the basic rights of every american a conviction that powerful voices must not be allowed to drown out the voices of every day americans. to find someone with such a long career of public service marked by complex and sensitive issues. to find someone that just about everyone not only respects but

genuinely likes, that is rare and it speaks to who merrick garland is not just as a lawyer but as a man. people respect the way he treats others. his genuine courtesy and respect for his colleagues and those that come before his court. they admire his civic mindedness. mentoring his clerks throughout their careers. urging them to use it to serve their communities. setting his own example by tudoring a young student each year for the past 18 years. they're moved by his deep devotion to his family. his wife of nearly 30 years and their two daughters becky and jesse. they indulge their love of hiking and skiing and canoing and their love of america by visiting our national parks. people respect his deep and

abiding passion for protecting our most basic constitutional rights. it's a passion i'm told that manifested itself at an early age and one story is indicative of this. it's notable. as valedictorian of his high school class he had to deliver a commencement address. the other student speaker that day spoke first and unleashed a critique of the vietnam war. fearing the controversy that might result several parents decided to unplug the sound system and the rest of the student's speech was muffled and he didn't agree with the tone of his classmates remarks nor his choice of topic for that day but stured by the sight of a fellow student's choice being silenced he tossed aside his prepared remarks and delivered a passionate and promptu defense of our first amendment rights. it was the beginning of a life

long career as a lawyer and prosecutor and as a judge devoted to protecting the rights of others and he has done that work with decency and humanity and common sense and a common touch and i'm proud that he will continue that work on our nation's highest court. i said i would take this process seriously and i did i chose a serious man and judge. over my seven years as president in all of my conversations as senators from both parties in which i asked their views on qualified supreme court nominees. this includes the previous two seats that hi to fill. the one name that has come up repeatedly from republicans and democrats alike is merrick

garla garland. now i recognize that we have entered the political season or perhaps these days it never ends. a political season that's more noisier and volatile than usual. republicans will point to democrats that made it hard for republican presidents to get their nominees con if i recalled. and they're not wrong about that. there's been politics involved in nominations in the past. although it should be pointed out that in each of those instances democrats ultimately confirmed a nominee put forward by a republican president. i also know that because of justice scalia's role on the court and in american law and americans are divided on a number of issues before the court it is tempting to make

this confirmation process an extension of our divided politics. the squabbling going on in the news every day. but to go down that path would be wrong. it would be a betrayal of our best traditions. and a betrayal of the vision of our founding documents. and at a time when our politics are so polarized. at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and curtesy and comedy are often treated like they're disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight and treat the process of appointing a supreme court justice with the care it deserves. our supreme court really is unique. it's supposed to be above

politics. it has to be and it should stay that way. to suggest that someone as qualified and respected as merrick garland doesn't even deserve a hearing let alone an up or town vote to join an institution as important as our supreme court when 2-thirds of americans believe otherwise, that would be unprecedented. to suggest that someone who has served his country with honor and dignity with a distinguished track record of delivering justice for the american people might be treated as one republican leader stated as a political pinata, that can't be right. tomorrow judge garland will travel to the hill to begin meeting with senators one-on-one. i simply ask republicans in the senate to give him a fair he

hearing and then an up or down vote. if you don't, then it will not only be an abdication of the senate's constitutional duty but it will end a process for confirming and nominating judges that is beyond repair. it will mean everything is subject to the most partisan of politics. everything. it will provoke an endless cycle and make it possible for any president democrat or republican to carry out their constitutional function. the reputation of the supreme court will inevitably suffer. faith in our justice system will suffer. our democracy will suffer as well.

i have fulfilled my constitutional duty. mow it's time for the senate to do theirs. presidents to not stop working in the final year of their term. neither should a senator. and the senate will take a break and leave town on recess for two weeks. my earnest hope is that senators take that time to reflect on the importance of this process to our democracy. not what's expedient and not what's happening in the moment but what does this mean for our institutions? fur our common life? the stakes, the consequences, the seriousness of the job we all swore an oath to do and when they return i hope that they'll

act in a bipartisan fashion. i hope they're fair. that's all. i hope they are fair. as we did when they confirm merrick garland to the d.c. circuit i ask that they confirm merrick garland to the supreme court so he can take his seat in time to fully participate in his work for the american people this fall. he is the right man for the job. he deserves to be con if i recalled. i could not be prouder of the work that he has already done on behalf of the american people. he deserves our thanks and a fair hearing. with that i'd like to invite judge garland to say a few words. [ applause ]

>> thank you mr. president. this is the greatest honor of my life. other than lynn agreeing to marry me 28 years ago. it's also the greatest gift i have ever received except and there's another caveat, the birth of our daughters jesse and becky. as my parents taught me, by both words and deeds a life of public service is as much a gift to the person who serves as it is to those he is serving and for me there could be no higher public service than serving as a member of the united states supreme court. my family deserves much of the credit for the path that lead me here. my grandparents left the

settlement at the born of western russia and eastern europe in the early 1900s fleeing antesemitism and hoping to make a better life for their children in america. they settled in the midwest making their way to chicago. there my father who ran the smallest of small businesses from a room in our basement took me with him as he made the rounds to his customers always impressing upon me the importance of hard work and fair dealing. there my mother headed the local pta and school board and directed a volunteer services agency all the while instilling in my sisters and me the understanding that service to the community is a responsibility above all others. even now my sisters honor that example by serving the children

of their communities. and i know that my mother is watching this on television and crying her eyes out. so are my sisters who have supported me in every step i have ever taken. i only wish that my father were here to see this today. i also wish that we hadn't taught my older daughter to be so adventurous that she would be hiking in the mountains out of cell service range when the president called. it was the sense of responsibility to serve the community instilled by my parents that lead me to leave my law firm to become a prosecutor in 1989. there one of my first assignments was to assist in the prosecution of a see len gang that had come down to the district from new york and took over a public housing project and terrorized the residents. the hardest job we faced was

persuading mothers and grandmothers that if they testified we would be able to keep them safe. and convict the gang members. we succeeded only by convincing witnesses and victims hah they could trust that the rule of law would prevail. years later when i when to oklahoma city to investigate the bombing of the federal building i saw up close the devastation that can happen when someone abandons the justice system as a way of resolving grievances and instead takes matters into his own hands. once again, i saw the importance of assuring victims and families that the justice system could work. we promised that we would find the perpetrators. that we would bring them to justice and that we would do it in a way that honored the constitution. the people of oklahoma city gave

us our trust and we did everything we could to live up to it. trust that justice would be done in our courts without prejudice or partisanship is what distinguishes this country from others. people must be confident that a judge's decisions are determined by the law and only the law. for a judge to be worthy of such trust he or she must be faceful to the constitution and to the statutes passed by the congress. he or she must put aside his personal views or preferences and follow the law fidelity to the constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life and it's the hall mark of the kind of judge i have tried to be for the past 18 years. if the senate sees fit to

confirm me for the position for which i have been nominated today i promise to continue on that course. mr. president, it's a great privilege to be nominated by a fellow chicagoan. i at grateful beyond words for the honor you have bestowed upon me. >> thank you. congratulations. good job. [ applause ] >> that is the president nominating d.c. court of appeals judge merrick garland of the supreme court after what he called an exhaustive process saying garland's name is the one that came up repeatedly in conversations with republicans and democrats over potential nominees and stepping into a con sen, fight saying that not giving garland a fair hearing

would set a precedent for confirming judges beyond repair. >> well, carl after all the gracious words about judge garland's lifetime achievements and his signature judicial achievement of heading up the oklahoma city bombing prosecution make no mistake about it, president obama basically put on a full-court press to put pressure on the senate right away to give this man a fair hearing and a confirmation vote he is uniquely prepared to serve immediately. fast forwarding to a very heightened political season where the court is part of the senor stage of the on going political debate but he also says it would be wrong to go down the path of polarizing the court in much the same way that the electorate is polarized. he says this is precisely not the time that we should do that. we should quote play it straight. our supreme court is supposed to

be above politics and that he said to not get a vote would be unprecedented and as he mentioned, his nominee will be on capital hill tomorrow to begin making the rounds with the key judicial members going forward. >> we're joined once again by daniel that joins us having written a lot about the nominating process. danielle, the president talks about this tit for at the but also goes back to his own. isn't that flr process. >> well, there was a difference to be clear about obama and his position, what he objected to with respect to his back kbrogr was the role he had in authoring torture memos for george w. bush. he had a problem with his own

personal philosophies but some of the things he had written were not in line with his vision of america so there's a difference there: it was interesting that the speech that obama gave was set up into three thirds. we had the background piece and the judicial piece and then really a full third of his speech was dedicated to discussing or his talking points on asking the senate to be fair and consider the nomination of the justice. >> what is the presedent for refusing to declare this nomination. whether it's ahead of time we're not going to consider the president's nominee or delaying it as long as possible. aside from the filabuster has there been a case close to this environment that you can think of? >> we can look back to the confirmation hearings overall but it was many years ago now

but of course he was a very strong conservative and he got hearings. i don't think we have ever seen it put forlthth and he spoke about the supreme court and it's role in our republic and that's the case if you look at the structure of the institution. supreme court justices aren't elected. like all other federal judges they have a live time appointment. they're men to be above the fray. >> that turned into a whole term. are we in that same category now based on what the senate does or doesn't do with merrick garland? >> it's hard to say. we're not even there yet. we had it from republican

senators. there's a big difference between them and there's many people scouring his opinions. 19 years is a long, long time to see whether he is as dangerously progressive as some on the right will have people say. it's not clear to me that he is. one thing that is clear is that he speaks genuinely about the constitution which is important no matter what political stripe you are and certainly his lifetime of political service, being a justice is really one of the ultimate ways that you can serve this republic. >> we're expecting to hear from senate majority leader mitch mcconnell in a moment on this very issue but already some statements coming out from some congressmen and senators that argue that the american people deserve to have a say in this nomination. >> yes. >> what does someone with a constitutional law background say about that?

>> the american people already had their say. president obama was elected the second time for a four year term and not a three year term and certainly the notion is a term that is announced around and used regardless of whether you have a republican or democrat in the white house but ultimately it's an 8 year -- it's two full year terms. he is still the president. and so the notion that the american people are better served or should be served by the next president appointing supreme court nominee makes no sense and has no basis in the constitution. >> daniel we appreciate your guidance today. obviously big fuse and we're in for a long process here arguably. daniel is litigation attorney at nixon peabody's new york city office. dow is up 19 points. fed decision a few hours away. we're back in just a moment. n, at&t helps keep everyone connected. right now at at&t, buy the new samsung galaxy s7 and get one free.

no matter how you hang out, share every minute of it. buy one water resistant samsung galaxy s7 and get one free. and right now, get up to $650 in credits per line to help you switch to at&t. [alarm beeps] ♪ ♪ the intelligent, all-new audi a4 is here. ♪ ♪ ain't got time to make no apologies...♪

>> live shot of the senate floor. mitch mcconnell will take to the floor. when he starts speaking we'll go there live. in the meantime as the president makes his pick for the court the race to replace him is getting clearer. john harwood is live with everything that happened last night. >> the race for president is of course the backdrop to the fate of the obama supreme court nominee merrick garland because you have the republican presidential candidates saying no, you should delay.

let's take stock of where the race stands in both parties. on the democratic side last night. look at the totals. hillary clinton after winning four out of the five races last night. she has 2-thirds of the delegate she needs to be nominated at the convention. twice as many as bernie sanders has. with those victories last night she firmed up support among the super delegates that helped expand her lead. on the republican side donald trump din win everything but he did expand his delegate lead over ted cruz. he has more than half he needs to be nominated. he has a lead of a couple of hundred over ted cruz. john kasich and marco rubio behind. john kasich won in ohio but donald trump won in florida. he knocked out marco rubio. he's done well although he's close to ted cruz in missouri.

they'll split the delegates there. he won in north carolina. so it's not certain that donald trump will be able to get to the 1237 delegates he needs to be nominated in cleveland on the first ballot but he has got a descent shot to do that and that wasn't seriously interrupted last night guys. >> john, thanks for that. of course as we continue to look at the results of the primaries and a former mitt romney campaign. good morning to you both. >> good morning. what did ohio change realistically on the path to cleveland. >> it changed the path for donald trump to get the 1237 delegates he needs to as john mentioned on the first ballot. that's 66 delegates that he doesn't get. he needs to win at a higher percentage rate than he has in the past to get to that point. he may do it and he may not. kasich cannot get the delineate

g -- delegates he needs but we could be headed for a contested convention in cleveland and there's states coming up in the west and the northeast that aren't necessarily locks for donald trump and he may wind up short of that number going into cleveland and for that to make a difference in the west and northeast where you would expect a candidate like kasich to do well up to this point. >> i would expect establishment support to fall behind kasich and try to stop trump and cruz and the ultimate goal is to beat hilary and neither candidate have any chance of beating hilary and trump is below 30% on

online betting it's less than 30% on online betting and cruz is less than 20%. so the only chance in beating hilary at this point, the probability that the republicans win the presidency is less than 30% today so the only chance republicans have is to stop trump and cruz and it's tricky math because they say 2-thirds of cruz's delegates will go to trump so if cruz loses trump wins. so the refrain is becoming would you rather lose with cruz than trump but unless you go to a contested convention which by the way online betting, 30% chance of a contested convention, that's the only chance i think we have, republicans have of beating hillary clinton in the fall. >> for someone that say if you're a member of the establishment and you're backing kasich -- we're getting the senate majority leader on the senate floor now. we'll take that -- yes. i see come mens.

>> it is the senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a president and with hold it's consent. we declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama the senate will continue to observe the biden rule so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. either way our view is this in filling this vacancy. let me remind what vice president biden said if he was chairman of the judiciary

committee in the senate. it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the mitt cal season is underway and it's action on a supreme court nomination that must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is fair. we will be in deep trouble as an institution. others may fret he said that this approach will leave the court with only 8 members for sometime. but as i see it, chairman biden said the cost of such a result the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justice four to four are quite minor. compared to the costs that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would

assuredly be a bitter fight no matter how good a person is nominated by the president. consider that last part. senator biden said that the cost to the nation would be too great no matter who the president nominates. president obama and his allies might try to pretend this disagreement is about a person but as i just noted his own vice president made it clear that it's not. the biden rule reminds us that the decision the senate announced weeks ago remains about a principle and not a person. about a principle and not a person. president obama made this nomination not with the intent of seeing the nominee con if i recalled but in order to

politicize it for purposes of the election which is the type of thing then chairman biden was concerned about. the exact thing chairman biden was concerned about. the biden rule understands that what the president has done with this nomination would be unfair to any nominee and more importantly the rule warrants of the great cost the president's action could carrie for our nation. americans are certain to hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side in the coming days. but here are the facts they should keep in mind. the current democratic leader said the senate is not a rubber stamp and he noted that the constitution does not require the senate to give presidential nominees a vote. that's the current democratic leader. the incoming democratic leader

did not even wait until the final year of george w. bush's term to essentially tell the senate not, he said, not to consider any supreme court nominee the president sent. the biden rule support what is the senate is doing today. underlining that what we're talking about is a principle and not a person. so here's our view. instead of spending more time debating an issue where we can't agree let's get working to address the issues where we can. we just passed critical bipartisan legislation to help address the heroin and prescription crisis in our country. let's build on that success. let's keep working together to get our economy moving again and make our country safer rather than endlessly debating an issue where we don't agree. as we continue working on issues

like these the american people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue and let's let the american people decide. the senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualification of the nominee, the next president nominates. whoever that might be. >> mitch mcconnell reiterating his decision that the senate will not hold hearings on the president's nomination siting the biden rule when senator biden said it would be better for the senate to hold off approving nominees during an

election year. this is about that principle and not a person. ben white, this is like apple fbi. it's hard to see which breaks first. >> i don't think republicans are going to break on this. i think mcconnell was clear that there's not going to hearings. there's not going to be a vote on garland and he had to make the case that it's not about judge garland because republicans supported him in the past. he is widely respected. they're trying to make it about a principle that it should be the voters that decide. it's purely a political fight now. democrats think they have the upper hand and they can betray republicans as obstructionists. they know that republicans across the country would revolt against them and they would be in bigger trouble.

it's up to the people in the fall to decide who is right here but judge garland i don't think is going to get hearings or a vote on capital hill. >> how do you think this plays with independents and the sort of voter that's undecided? do they care about the supreme court political fighting? do you think they're convinced about the talk of the biden rule and president obama's own conduct when he was a senator? or might they be moved by what we just saw from garland standing up there talking about it's the most important moment in his life and here mitch mcconnell comes and snuffs it out and he's basically saying let hillary clinton decide. that's a noble enough stance that it will work with independents that say i've been given an opportunity to decide. he took a very clever negotiating position by saying he wouldn't consider it. that forced the president to put up a moderate that would be hard

for him to turn down and now i think he should be thinking i'm going to probably lose the senate. i'm going to probably lose the presidency would i rather have this nomination which republicans have supported in the past or the one that's going to come next but i think he's now in a corner where he can. he can't back off of his principle. so he looks good and not bad. >> for an election season that looked to be defined by trade and jobs, this is just layered on a big new layer. thank you guys. we're back in a minute. and than doesn't always come back up. [ toilet flushes ] so when you need a plumber, we can help you get the job done right, guaranteed. get started today at angie's list.

theand to help you accelerate,. we've created a new company... one totally focused on what's next for your business. the true partnership where people,technology and ideas push everyone forward. accelerating innovation. accelerating transformation. accelerating next. hewlett packard enterprise.

>> sony announcing playstation vr is going to launch in october after being delayed in the first half of this year. andrew house is the group ceo and joins us now. andrew there's quite a price difference between playstation vr and your competitors out there. just for example, the oculus rift, and htc vibe will require thousand pc's plus 1 or $200 more for the head set on top of

you. how much of an advantage do you think that gives you and how much an advantage is the game line-up you expect to have at launch. >> we have a couple of advantages. we have something like 36 million playstation 4s that are out there all of which are essentially playstation vr ready. because it's a single fixed platform in contrast to the pc that allows developers to be guaranteed that any experience is automatically going to be the same for everyone that's using it on a playstation four. the cost advantage is something that we're happy about. we're profitable at the price that we selected we think every time we introduce a new platform it's as far as possible if we can deliver great value to the consumer we're always striving toward that. >> is the playstation vr a consult or a controller? to really get the full

experience are people going to need to buy two or are some players going to be watching the tv set interacting and maybe just one player has on the head set? >> you have hit on one of the things that i think is very cool about playstation vr. we very much wanted to have something called the social screen. so the image that you see in the vr head set is also available on the television monitor. and i have to say i've had a lot of fun in the office actually watching people playing playstation vr and, you know, sensing their reactions. we're also bundling in a game called play room vr which really allows one person to play on the head set and then the other, up to four players to sit on the couch with them and have a differ view of the game and have them interact together. we think that it's really important that virtual reality is not just about a closed system. something that isolates you from

other folks around you but it becomes part of a social experience as well. >> andrew, i'm thinking back to a forester report that came out in the past week or so that argued that a lot of vr is still sti hype. i wonder how much of an education you think you have to give consumers to convince them this is going to be here for the long hall. >> i think that this is going to be in it's first situation, it's going to be an enthusiast driven market and they have been generated by the word of mouth and influence that they generate. i think that we are on the cusp of a brand new form of games. a brand new form even of story telling and that's going to be a very very long road but i think the technology has matured to the point that this is now a great consumer experience. i like to tell a story -- i was a vr skeptic until i played something called the heist and

it was at the point where i was close to the end of the demo and tried to put down the controller on a desk that actually one there and suddenly i realized that this was something special. i had been convinced that i had entered into a different world. we hope that's the magical experience that is what interactive entertainment is all about. i think it's going to be a long interesting road for vr but we feel that the time is now to embark on that journey and we hope consumers will come with us. >> quickly, we're almost out of time. should we expect the same level of marketing spend on this launch that we normally see with consoles? >> i'm not sure that it will be to the same degree as a console but i think you will see a lot of great content out there. a lot of it is emerging from independent developers because you have rewritten the game's rules. it allows for a lot of other players in terms of content creators to come into the market. we will market well. we obviously want to build

awareness and mine share for vr as a category. the industry needs to embrace the innovation. >> andrew we look forward to seeing it. unfortunately we have to leave it there. >> busy afternoon on tap. let's get back to headquaters and the half. >> welcome to the halftime report. i'm scott wapner. our top trade this hour, has america's central bank lost it's mojo? with us for the hour today steven weiss, joe, and john and pete. less than two hours to go until janet yellen and company announce their decision on interest rates and the meeting could certainly set the stage for hikes in the months to come. our question today is this, has the fed lost it's way and at the same time its credibility? that debate begins right now. pete, has the fed lost it's kred? >> the reason i would answer the question yes is