>> if he says he doesn't want to change the balance on the court for a more liberal faith she might nominate a more liberal justice -- as i read the statement he said he would consider it during the lame duck do it now. why wait? >> i understand that. but to hold up the nominations of donald trump can get the nomination, that should scare everybody. >> [inaudible] he wants -- [inaudible] >> i would bet i would have to

say if we are doing a larger class, i only did one but it's not very logical if you are going to do it in a lame-duck why not not do it now? everybody knows who the nominee is going to be. >> what did you tell the judge on withstanding scrutiny in the pressure and believing that he is going to be under? >> i told him to be insulted to be calm and collected. he's a very smart man. we talked about the cases that he's presented and i think it's great to do just fine. he's not going to get any discussions from me or anyone else. if somebody wants to lecture him on what should be done he will listen that he won't make no comment as to what he would do.

one last question. >> did you talk to him at all why he was willing to put himself in the situation at risk? >> i didn't have to do that. he answered that standing next to the president. if you are a trial lawyer as he is, this is a culmination of anybody's legal life to be selected to go the wanted the supreme court of the united states and i think that he will be confirmed but if i were in his shoes i would be willing to take all of the piece of fruit thrown at him as a non- figurative way i just think it is a great honor for him to have been selected and he's willing and is a it is a tough man willing to take whatever they have to throw. thanks everybody.

>> [inaudible conversations]

earlier in the day the ranking member patrick leahy spoke to reporters after the meeting. >> i assume you may have questions but i just had a good meeting i've known him for a long time that we had a couple interesting conversations were both former prosecutors and i followed them very closely during oklahoma city to the extend of creating legislations

for the communities hit by terrorism which has expanded them but i watched the way that he handled what could have been a real problem. so what happens now? i know the answer when you are a judge and you have been a prosecutor what do you do? he said you look at each case by itself so i googled against the government sometimes handed to me that's what i've recommended the judges in vermont obviously a different level. i've also said would it make any difference coming in the greatest patrick leahy from

vermont or patrick smith from vermont coming forward and that's the part i want him to supreme court justice. so i am pleased with the president's nomination. i think that what you see is what you get with him. there hasn't no hidden agenda. he's been very clear where he stands and constitutional law and now i'm proud to serve in the senate but i wish they would remember each of us took an oath to uphold the constitution and let's just follow the constitution. you probably don't have any questions but if you do, go ahead. >> [inaudible] i'm wondering if you can talk about how difficult [inaudible]

>> well, i didn't have to talk about it because you've seen some in the republican leadership say they don't care what the constitution says. they are going to ignore it and i'm hoping that will change. we followed our normal routine. we could easily have the hearings, the debate, the background and the vote by memorial day. we are taking an unprecedented number of resources both last year and this year. cancel the couple if you don't have time, cancel a couple. we are paid every single day whether we are here or not. it's the job we are paid to do. there is no reason why especially somebody as noncontroversial as the chief judge there is no question this

could easily be done by memorial day. >> did the judge express any sort of disappointment with the republican reaction and if you talk to the republican senators directly said to him you are a nice guy that we are nothing to take you up this year. >> this is too important. they should talk to him by phone. they should do what we've always done whether you meet with the nominee -- i've done this with every president since i've been here whether it's been republican or democratic as a courtesy, you meet with them and give very important things the senator can take for a lifetime appointment. i think they over to the constituents into the country and more importantly to the constitution. the ahead and meet with the

person, don't phone it in. >> do they talk about that at all? >> no, he did not discuss any politics. he discussed what an honor it is and he discusses the philosophy of the law, which is being an impartial judge. >> the last few weeks of resource will obviously be critical regarding his nomination. what specific events are planned and is there anything concrete plant? have you planned to promote him the next few weeks? >> if you see the calls and letters i'm getting from my state but from republicans and democrats, it isn't a question of promoting. people in my state are some of the most conservative saying do the job and ask questions, some would suggest they have a question they like to ask. ask a question and then do the

job. the critical period is nominating. i am not going to go off and do big events -- [inaudible] what i want to do is do our job and actually have a hearing. i'm not going to do some dog and pony show in vermont or anywhere else on this. everybody in vermont i talked with, again, republicans and democrats across the political spectrum it's the same thing. you get paid to do the job then make up your mind it's how they

vote you either vote yes or no. >> you talk about what role they might have been persuading republicans to move forward. what role the judge himself might play in persuading republicans to move forward and what would you envision for him? >> i think that out of the role that he has, you have people attacking him saying we can't do this in the back. he's not going to go before the press like i am now and give his side of the story. where he gets the chances that a hearing and that's what you ought to have. he isn't going to say anything publicly that in the hearing he can answer questions and he ought to have that opportunity.

it's a question of fairness and most were simply a following the constitution. but how can you say we are being fair if we don't give them a hearing? there is no fairness in that. i can't think of -- i've been here with a supreme court justice who doesn't have a hearing and said -- and there were a couple proposing names at the request of the white house both of them republicans. >> was he prepared to wait until after the election is necessary? >> we won't even go into that because it should be a non- issue. the fact is if it takes about 60 days you want to set a new precedent to say it takes a

year, i don't think so and the senator said we would never do that after the election well, do it now like you're supposed to. the president wasn't elected for three years and nearly 5 million vote plurality. i realize there are so many others but he got elected and is doing his job. >> how do senate democrats keep this issue alive if the story doesn't change? >> if what the press wants, and i'm not suggesting you do but to have a grandstanding everyday i would hope the press will talk to the legal scholars, both

republicans and democrats as to what they think. i will give you one example. some of you have been here long enough to remember president ronald reagan and senator goldwater the best-known conservative republicans. senator goldwater recommended sandra day o'connor. she had a full hearing and was voted on and became the first woman to serve in the united states senate and is now retired she has made it very clear publicly that she thinks we should go forward with the nomination