>> you have been watching the national governors association with two sessions this morning, the first non-childhood hunger and what the states are doing for solutions around the country -- the first on childhood hunger and what the states are doing for solutions run the country. the second on a range of issues including state's power and the associationernors winter meeting continues with transportation secretary elaine chao discussing infrastructure needs. we will have it live for you at 1:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. steve: joining us on "newsmakers " is leonard leo.

he is currently serving as a white house adviser on president trump's supreme court nominee. thank you for being here. leonard: good to be here. steve: joining us, we have jess and josh gerstein. the president expects another supreme court vacancy this summer. what do you expect? leonard: i think the white house always has to be prepared for this. steve: with the nomination of neil gorsuch, and that any mind of democrats who have to consider him or someone else, what does that mean in terms of the politics we will face in the coming? -- in the coming months? viewed in terms

of other vacancies. as theould be doing this scalia seat. it does not change the balance of the court, conservative versus liberal. but because of the way the base on the left is angry about the election and so forth, i think there's a real chance this will be a fight and possibly even a filibuster. steve: let's turn to jess bravin from "the wall street journal." jess: if this is the scalia seat, if the next vacancy is one of the more liberal members or justice kennedy, that has the possibility of changing the direction of the court. do you expect we will see another very strong conservative nominee should there be a vacancy on that wing, or given the divided nation and the circumstances of this past election, more of a moderate gesture from the white house? leonard: i think the president has made it pretty clearly he has a set of standards for each of these seats, no matter who is vacating the. i don't think you will see a whole lot of difference between the kind of person he nominated

this time and who will be nominated next time. i think it will be someone someoneommitted to interbreeding the constitution, as he puts it, the way that the framers meant it to be. jess: he said other things about the judiciary as well, talking whot a "so-called judge" ruled against him. he talked about judge curiel and disparaging terms when he got a case. stephen miller cast doubt on judicial review of executive actions. and then we had yesterday, of course, the white house chief of staff, reince priebus, talking reflecting gorsuch the vision of donald trump your it can you clarify what that vision is? is that vision someone who does what the president wants, as adjusted by those remarks?

or is the president filled vision bigger than that? i think when the chief of staff referred to the president's vision, reince priebus was referring to the idea that here you have a man legals extraordinary talent, is respected by people across the political and ideological spectrum. he's an originalist. he's a textual list. he takes the constitution seriously and he understands the relationship between enforcing the structural constitution, the separation of powers, checks and balances on one hand, and the preservation of liberty on the other. i think that is, in a nutshell, what the chief of staff meant. whether judge courses will be someone who is a rubber stand for the president or the executive branch, his record does not break that -- bear that out. he is someone who has shown real skepticism of overreach by the executive here it have no reason to believe that will change when

he gets to the supreme court. steve: josh gerstein of politico. anything from judge gorsuch's record that comes from a court that did not get as many national security related cases escorts in the washington area do -- anything from his record that gives us an indication of his views of the president's authority in the national security area? he obviously played in the national security space little bit, having been in the justice department during the war on terror. my perspective is he understands to some extent the delicate balance between giving the presidency a good deal of speed national security, but he has seen the awesome power of the executive and not the state international security context. givense is he is someone

his demeanor, given the way that he analyzes issues, he is someone who will understand this delicate allen's and really try to thread that needle carefully. this actually have to do with immigration, and this is one where he found for the immigrant rather than foring through -- mining the government. none of this is clear, josh, but it seems to me his record suggests that he has some familiarity and will have some sensitivity in striking the balance. josh: if you were -- and this is hypothetical -- but if you were a democratic senator who was respectful of judge gorsuch's credentials and his jurisprudence, but harbors some lingering bitterness and perhaps anger and conviction that what happened to judge merrick garland was wrong, what would you are what have you advised any democratic senators and that

situation to do -- i and that situation to do? leonard: if i were a democratic senator angry about the way judge garland was treated -- i would move on. part of the reason why they escalate is that no one has been wanting to say we are spiraling down with this process. someone needs to make the first move and extend the olive branch. someone needs to bring some sanity into this process. if i were a democrat, i would try to do that in this instance. we have judge gorsuch, an extraordinary man who calls it the way he sees it. democrats are not going to agree necessarily with everything he does as a judge, but he is an extraordinary guy who has widespread credibility. this is a good opportunity for them to move on. whether they do it or not is a different question. .> if the roles were reversed

if it was hillary clinton who had lost the popular vote but have won the you up oral vote, would you encourage republican senators to move on and allow hillary to appoint the liberal counterpart of judge gorsuch? nard: i would urge them to scrutinize the nominee carefully , ask tough questions, and if they believe a democrat nominee does not share their view of the proper role of the courts or jurisprudence, and set some time to debate, having up or down vote, and give the judge a simple majority. that is my position. >> if in three years president trump runs for reelection and the republicans still have the

senate and the is another vacancy on the court, do you there will be the same ruling as in 2016 and not have a supreme court nominee? leonard: i do not know what senator mcconnell would do. it seems to me that if you are close to an election, then you wait. an important,t -- defining issue. it is one of the most important things a president does. >> when he? leonard: i have absolutely no idea what he would do. >> do you agree with senator cruz that there could be another vacancy on the court this summer? one of those potential vacancies is justice kennedy who is a republican appointee. there is been some talk he might choose to leave the court while there is a republican in the white house.

there is also another school of thought that says justice kennedy has been the swing vote in several close decisions over the last couple of years that has set pretty significant president in the country on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and so forth. which of those factors do you think would be foremost in his mind in making the decision to retire? leonard: i do not know. ato not think he even knows the moment. we are in the middle of the confirmation process, and the court has been without it ninth member for a wild. i did not know what justice kennedy is thinking. if i were him, i would want to take stock of what the environment is like after the confirmation takes place. see if the court returns to a state of normalcy. i would want to sort of think about my own, personal situation, but mainly i would want to make sure the court is

back to normal. if it is, then as a justice i would have the flexibility to decide if i wish to retire now or sometime in the not so distant future -- a year or so from now. i do not know what he will do, but that is what i suspect any good justice would think about. >> you do not think he is concerned about specific issues like abortion, affirmative action? -- people wait to see what the kennedy opinion is in these areas more than what any other justice says. is that a factor in the decision? leonard: i do not know if it is for him or not. knowing what i do know about him and his dedication to the effectiveness and independence of the dictionary, the smoothlye he places on and effectively running courts, i think he will be thinking a lot about the courts and their institutional integrity more

than anything else. that is not to say he would not think about those other things -- i do not know. he cares very deeply about the institutional integrity of the supreme court. i think that will be foremost in his mind whenever he makes the decision to retire whether it is a summer for two summers from now. the justices on the court right now are very attuned to that. having seen a number of retirements and retirement scenarios, a number of passing on the courts, i think they are all very attuned to this. i think that is a good thing for the long-term health of the court. >> to follow-up up on that, is it any coincidence that justice thatch -- it was mentioned the president was considering some appointees to the next seat of justice kennedy. you are right at the storm center of this issue.

is that a coincidence that being a justice kennedy clerk is an important qualification? leonard: i do not think the fact that judge gorsuch was a clerk to justice kennedy had anything to do with it. it is not surprising. justice kennedy has been on the court since 1987. he is one of the longest sitting numbers of the court. and so, the fact of the matter is that he has turned out more law clerks than most. there were a couple of judge scalia clerks on the list being thrown about. justice khalil on the court for a longtime. justiceyou have a -- scalia was on the court for a long time. anytime you have a long serving justice, it is a good chance there clerks will end up on a short list. i think it is more that in any effort to call favor with a specific justice on the court.

theou are advising president by supreme court nominee. what does that mean? leonard: it means you want to get a sense of what the on --ent's perspectives are on what he wants in a justice. you have to be an honest broker. you have to work closely with him and his white house counsel. it means trying to be a team of player to try and get it right. that means knowing everything you can know about perspective nominees. once there has been a nomination, knowing everything you possibly can about the record. also knowing everything you can about how to navigate the process. it can be a very contentious process. not just with democrats, but also how republicans do with the confirmation process and how

vigorous they will be in moving things forward. you have a lot of moving parts. >> can i ask you a question about judge gorsuch? his mother was at the center of a washington scandal of the early 1980's. i think she was forced to resign by the reagan white house. i think she was ultimately cleared or anything really came of that controversy. had he spoke with him about what impact they may have had on his views of washington or congress? nard: i did not have to talk with him, because one of the things i did was the book -- i read the book on that entire chapter in her life. there is a page in that book where she talks about a young neil gorsuch. both with theset way his mother was treated -- he believed she was treated

unjustly, and he was very upset that she stepped back from public life. that he felt she should not be quitting and walking off the stage. i have not spoke with him about it, but i get the distinct sense that something came out of that experience for him. i think he developed a sense of what trial by fire in washington means. i think he developed a sense of courage and determination that there will be times when barbs are cast on you, but you have to be determined and forbear. that is my sense of it based on what i read. also by the way he comports himself and thinks about the confirmation process. he will be honest and candid. campaign,the president trump put out a -- put

out to list of potential nominees to the spring court. judge gorsuch was on it, but it also included in number of state judges. 81 or two trial judges. his -- maybe one or two trial judges. selectionte represents sort of the elite of the legal world with his accomplished background and honors. they are all tremendous reflections of his intelligence and skill, however they are the quintessential mark of being in the elite. that,ve an administration day in and day out, talks about attacking the establishment and deconstructing the establishment. he is about as establishment as you can in vision. why didn't the president decided to go with someone who so clearly embodies -- why did it the president -- why did the

president decided to go with someone who so clearly embodies the establishment rather than some of it comes from the outside like him? ; -- all, i wouldt of remember what he said that judge gorsuch was out of central casting. in that respect, you could say that neil gorsuch is part of the establishment, but in other respects he is not. first of all, he is a westerner. it is been a long time since we have had a justice from the west. ed for one oflerk them. as you get to know him, there is that sort of love for freedom

and accountability and transparency in government that westerners often exhibit. that is a little bit different from the northeast, white shoe law firm mentality. that neil gorsuch is a lawyer's lawyer in many ways. he is also a little scrappy, too. ofwas there at the beginning a very successful law firm. it is a kind of unconventional law firm. large andgetting more conventional today, but when he was there it was not. he was a kind of scrappy lawyer who did a lot of the negation. it represented a lot of maverick entrepreneurs in his early litigation. from that experience, i think you see that neil gorsuch is it -- is a bit of a bull. opinions a lot of his

-- opposing and consents. yes, he definitely has those degrees, but the fact of the matter is he took a bit of an unconventional path by going to oxford and doing a serious dissertation on a very heavy as c and spending time with some very special philosophers at oxford. seemthough that may highbrow, but it is not exactly establishment when it comes to the normal career that a lawyer or judge has. he has some odd aspects to his background the making seemed a little different than some of the other folks. >> can you tell us what really made the difference to you and the president? all these people -- they were

certainly legal heavyweights, but what was it about gorsuch as opposed to the other people in the mix that made the president say, "this is the one." " this is the guy i want people to see on the court and associate with me." leonard: there is no question that being exceptional is important. having that sharp legal mind. i do not want to undersell the importance of that. the president cares very deeply about that kind of branding to be sure. he is committed to quality. at the same time, he made it early -- he made it clear early on on the campaign trail that courage was something very important to him. the way he put it in our first meeting after the november election was that he wanted someone who was "not weak."

there are a lot of smart people in the legal world who could serve on the u.s. supreme court, but the real question that i think every president should ask , and the question he did ask was, "does this person have the courage to do what he thinks is right?" if you look at neil gorsuch's record, you see a man who has that capacity and determination. i think one of the most striking aspects of it is the number of separate opinions he writes as a court of appeals judge. the way he writes those opinions -- a lot of weight and humor. some occasional barbs,too -- barbs, too. he is willing to raise questions, and i think that was very attractive to the president.

>> one issue that comes up at fors on the supreme court confirmation hearings is developing a full record. you mentioned earlier that judge gorsuch served at the justice department for a few years. is there any possibility we will see some records of his work at that time before the confirmation hearing takes place? those toi would expect democrats on the senate judiciary committee. there will have to be some level of negotiation regards to what assets of that can be disclosed if there are national security issues. but yes, i do think those are requests that will be made. i would not be surprised if some of those materials would be part of the record. >> said the administration is not opposed to disclosing anything like that? i have not been told

what their process is for reviewing that material, but there is a long tradition of going through that material and trying to provide anything that would be most illuminating to the senate. wasehind the scenes, there a mention from counselor steve bannon yesterday during an appearance at cpac. he said something about it and ready to nominate 102 judges. is that right? as far asou tell us those vacancies at the district court levels? how quickly does the warehouse plan to bring -- white house plan to bring forth nominees for those positions? leonard: as i understand it, those nominations to the lower are a high priority to

the president and senior administration staff. having so many vacancies out the gate is significant and arguably unprecedented. it was something very much on his mind shortly after the election. he expressed numerous times the need to move quickly. the administration is aware of one of the criticisms against the george w. bush was its inability to get its first group of court of appeals judge out until early may. were some that are very mindful of the fact that things need to move quickly on this. in terms of when, the answer is yes, there have been conversations with senators and bothvetting taking place before and after the inaugural process to try and figure out who might be qualified for any number of these different positions.

i would think that the administration would want to get something done -- start to get something done at least as quickly as possible. think any kind table has yet been set, i would not be surprised if we start in early toations mid spring. >> we have a minute left. one, final question. judge gorsuch will be asked a lot of questions for his -- during his final confirmation hearing. how direct and candid you think he will be during the testimony? irony, there is the democrats want judge gorsuch to be an independent judge, but then they are going to ask him for pre-commitments on all sorts of kind of cases. it is inconsistent with what they are saying about judicial

independence. if neil gorsuch is smart about how he handles this, the answer will be, "i am sorry, senator. i have not been asked those questions by the resident. i will not give you an answer, because my duty to the american people is to not prejudge these cases and to be an independent spirit on the court." o, thank you for your time here on "newsmakers." i want to begin with a headline from last week on politico. what has been happening and what can we expect when the confirmation hearings get underway in a few weeks? he -- i think he has made a very successful impression.

a lot of the response to judge gorsuch out of the gate from the liberal groups was that he was an acceptable, radical conservative. you hear that a little less from hill as on capitol opposed to the interest groups. they seem to be keeping their powder dry. reasons to be getting some traction with democrats. -- despite issue is all the attention to judge gorsuch, it is not about him. it is really about merrick democrats canw extract maybe an ounce of flesh over that. it is a combination of that issue and this question of what happens for the next nominee. >> what can we expect when that gavel comes down for the judiciary committee? think for the republicans

it will be a complete lovefest for judge gorsuch. the democrats are still try to figure out what to do, because they do not have the votes to stop him. thehey invoke a filibuster, odds are very strong that the republicans will eliminate the procedure and put him on the court anyway. i think as josh said, it will be very much not about judge gorsuch but about judge garland. even more so, i think it will be about president trump. i think the democrats will see judge gorsuch as an opportunity to bring up many of the things and trump has said and done put gorsuch on the spot as to whether he would support those things. the more they can try to put daylight between gorsuch and trump -- that maybe health gorsuch look -- helps gorsuch look better, but if it makes trump looked bad then democrats

count that as a way. >> how can he prepare for these hearings? >> yes to be prepared for all these kind of questions. they are typically called "murder boards" at the white house where he is asked about every type of question. they've been talking about some of the answers that judge gorsuch might give to some questions put forward. that is typically the process they will go through. there areints out, some very specific questions that will be rising such as president trump's travel ban executive order especially as a new one is in the throes of being written. that thatly imagine kind of discussion will make its way into that hearing whether he wants to answer questions about that or not. >> at least a democrats need to align with the 52 republicans in the senate.

do you think there will be at least eight democrats who support his nomination? >> i think the democrats are looking very closely at what their base wants them to do. they cannot win, so the question is how do they want to lose? did they want to lose in a way that preserves a filibuster, or do they want to show their constituents that they are fighting what they consider to be at best a quasi-legitimate president. and a nomination to a seat that president obama should have been able to fill a year ago with judge garland. >> josh burstein, senior reporter for politico. gentlemen, think you both for being with us. >> thank you, steve. which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[video clip] -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] 's we will have elaine chao testimony before the cpac meeting coming up this afternoon at 1:45 p.m. president trump spoke earlier today at the conservative political action conference that took place just outside washington, d c on friday. his remarks are just under an hour. ♪ >> ♪ and i'm proud to be an american where at least i know i'm free and i won't forget the men who died who gave that right to me and i gladly stand up