matter, the phrase black lives matter written in response in the philly with zimmerman. -- the failure with zimmerman. foremost we definitely think of trayvon as a young man who galvanized this country. >> i think the name trayvon martin represents not just who trayvon martin was, but all young black and brown boys, and some girls as well, that have been killed in nobody is being held accountable. >> tonight at 9:00 eastern on afterwards. steve: joining us on "newsmakers" is leonard leo. he is executive vice president of the federalist society currently serving as a white , house adviser on president trump's supreme court nominee. thank you for being with us. leonard: good to be here. steve: joining us, we have jess bravin and josh gerstein.

thanks to both of you for being with us. let me begin with a comment made by ted cruz at cpac. he expects another supreme court vacancy this summer. what do you expect? the court is quite old at this point. it's been a while since we've had another vacancy except in the death of justice scalia. i think the white house always has to be prepared for this. steve: with the nomination of neil gorsuch, and that any mind -- and the minds of democrats who have to consider him or somebody else what does that , mean in terms of the politics we will face in the coming months? letter: this nomination is colored by the possibility of other vacancies. historically, they should be doing this as a scalia seat. whoever is nominated does not really change the balance of the court in terms of 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 of the "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 prospect 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 really committed to someone -- as he puts it, interpreting 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 about a "so-called judge" who ruled against him. he talked about judge curiel and disparaging terms when he got a case. the white house advisor stephen miller cast doubt on judicial review of executive actions. and then we had yesterday, of course, the white house chief of staff, mr. priebus, talking about judge gorsuch reflecting the vision of donald trump your -- and you clarify what that vision is? is that vision someone who does what the president wants, as has been suggested by some of those remarks? or is the president's vision bigger than that? leonard: i think when the chief of staff referred to the president's vision, what reince priebus was referring to the idea that here you have a man

who has extraordinary legal talent, 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 in a nutshell is what the chief of staff meant. whether judge gorsuch will be someone who is a rubber stand for the president or the executive branch, his record does not 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. josh: there are two areas of executive power. is there anything from judge gorsuch's record that comes from

a court that probably does not get as many national security related cases as the courts 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? leonard: well, 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 and dispatch and flexibility in crises involving national security, but he has seen the awesome power of the executive and of the state and a national security context. my sense is he is someone given his demeanor, given the way that he analyzes issues, he is someone who will understand this delicate balance and really try to thread that needle carefully.

interestingly the one case focuses on having to do the issue of immigration. this is one where he found for the immigrant rather than finding for 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 sense of the 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 or have you advised any democratic senators in that situation to do? >> if i were a democratic senator who was angry about the way judge garland was treated, i would move on. i think we have seen over the course of the past 15 or 20

years that things continue to escalate. part of the reason why they escalated is that no one has been wanting to say we are spiraling downward with this process. somebody has to make the first move. someone has to 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 and it was hillary clinton who had lost the popular vote but have won the electoral college vote would you encourage , republican senators to move on

and allow hillary to appoint the liberal counterpart of judge gorsuch? leonard: 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 the way to go about jurisprudence, set some time to debate, having up or down vote, and give that judge a simple majority. that is my position. that was my position with kagan and sotomayor. >> 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 think senator mcconnell will follow the same rule 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. that is because it is an important defining issue. , it is one of the most important things a president does. i think senator mcconnell would be very justified making that decision. >> would he? leonard: i have 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 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 as he is making the decision to retire? leonard: i do not know. i do not think he even knows at the moment. we are in the middle of the confirmation process, and the court has been without its ninth member for a wile. -- while. 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 whether i wish to retire now or sometime in the not so distant future. a year or so from now.

but 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? areas where he has seen to be -- 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 or not for him. knowing what i do know about him and his dedication to the effectiveness and independence of the judiciary, and the importance he plays his -- places on smoothly 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 no matter when he makes

the decision to retire whether it is a summer for two summers from now. to their credit, i think all of 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 was a laworsuch clerk for justice kennedy. it was mentioned that 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.

the fact he is a former supreme court clerk has a lot to do with it. >> but the other names? leonard it is not surprising. : justice kennedy has been on the court since 1987. he is one of the longest sitting members 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. because justice scalia was on the court for a long time. anytime you a long serving justice, there is a greater degree of likelihood a number of those clerks, especially the more accomplished once will end up surfacing on shortlists. it is more that any effort to call favor with a particular justice on the court. >> you are advising the president by supreme court nominees. what does that mean? letter: it means you listen a

lot because you get a sense of of the president's perspectives are on what he wants in a justice. you try to be an honest broker of information. that means not only serving the president from time to time but also working closely with his white house counsel, don mcgann, very trusted advisor to the president. 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 can possibly know about the record. really knowing how to navigate the process has been no it can be a very contentious process. not just in terms of democrats, but also how republicans do with -- deal 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. then ultimately cleared or anything really came of that controversy. have you talked to him about what impact they may have had on his views of washington or congress? leonard: i did not have to talk with him, because one of the things i did was 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. i believe at the time he was attending georgetown prep. he was very upset both with the way his mother was treated -- he believed she was unjustly treated and i agree. and he was very upset that she stepped back from public life. that she should not be quitting and walking off the stage.

i have never talked to 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. come where it may. >> during the campaign, president trump put out a -- put out to list of potential nominees to the spring court. -- supreme court. judge gorsuch was on it. but it also included in number of state judges.

at least one, maybe more trial judges. his ultimate selection is someone you would have to say embodies the elite of the legal from with his degrees columbia and oxford. these are all tremendous reflections of his intelligence and skill. however, the the quintessential marks of being in the elite. you have an administration that, day in and day out, talks about attacking the establishment and deconstructing the establishment. he is about as establishment as you could envision, like most supreme court nominees. why did the president decide to go someone who so clearly very classical background of the supreme court nominee in recent decades and that of someone who, like him, counsel the outside and raises some of different perspective and has credentials like any other people on the list?

leonard: first of all, i would always remember what the president said about neil gorsuch. he is straight out of central casting. has, thees he judgeship he currently occupies, service in the justice department. 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. he actually clerked for one of them. byron white. gorsuch andnow neil you see there is a love of freedom and that love of accountability and transparency in government that westerners often exhibit. that is a little bit different the usual northeast white shoe , law firm mentality.

it is true that neil gorsuch is a lawyer's lawyer in many ways. but he is also a little scrappy, too. he was there at the beginning of a very successful law firm. it is a kind of unconventional law firm. it may be getting more large and conventional today, but when he was there it was not. he was a kind of scrappy lawyer who did a lot of the negation. represented a lot of maverick entrepreneurs in his early career. i think what you see from that --erience is neil gorsuch is is a bit of a bull. he is willing to express his opinions, writes a lot of separate opinions, concurrent dissents which is another mark of someone who is not just establishment but willing to speak his mind. 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 -- -- heavy topic and spending time with some very special philosophers at oxford. even though that may seem highbrow, but it is not exactly establishment when it comes to the normal career that a lawyer or judge has. there are some odd aspects to his background the vacant seem a little different than some of the other folks like justice scalia. >> 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 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 -- he is willing to raise questions, and i think that was very attractive to the president. josh: one issue that comes up at times on the supreme court for 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 justice during that time before the confirmation hearing takes place? leonard: i would expect those to be requested by democrats on the senate judiciary committee. memos or emails, and of course 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. >> so the administration is not opposed to disclosing anything like that? leonard: 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.

>> behind the scenes, there was a mention from counselor steve bannon yesterday during an appearance at cpac. he said something about getting ready to nominate 102 judges. is that right? what can you tell us as far as vetting those vacancies at the district court levels? how quickly does the white house plan to bring forth nominees for those positions? leonard: those nominations to the lower courts are a high priority to the president and senior administration staff. vacancies out the gate is significant and arguably unprecedented. it was very much on the president's mind after the election.

he expressed the importance of moving quickly. the administration is aware of and fact that one of the criticisms the bush administration the george w. , bush administration received early on was the inability to get the first group of court of appeals judge out until early may. there are people in the white house and the president included were 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 vetting taking place both 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. while i do not think any kind table has yet been set, i would

not be surprised if we start seeing nominations in early to mid spring. late march, april time frame. >> we have a minute left. one, final question. he will be asked a lot of questions to the confirmation hearing. his views on abortions, whether or not money is free speech. how direct and candid you think he will be during the testimony? with specific questions looking for specific answers. leonard: here is the irony. the democrats want judge gorsuch to be an independent judge, but then they are going to ask him for pre-commitments on all sorts -- the issues they care about. yes, they last for pre-commitments on all sorts of cases. they want to prejudge them in front of the american people, which 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 was not those questions by the asked resident. if i had been asked 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." >> leonard leo, thank you for your time here on "newsmakers." leonard: thank you. continue with the headline last week at politico.com that judge gorsuch has a charm on capitol hill. what can we expect when the confirmation hearings get underway in a few weeks? >> he has been taking the meetings nominees normally do with people on the judiciary committee and others as well. i think he has made a very fairly successful impression. a lot of the response to judge gorsuch out of the gate from the liberal groups was that he was unacceptable radical , conservative. you hear that a little less from senators on capitol hill as opposed to the interest groups.

they seem to be keeping their powder dry. he seems to have been getting some traction with democrats. , still think the issue really despite all the attention to gorsuch, it is not about him. it is really about merrick garland and how democrats can extract if they can't get a pound of flesh over what was done with garland. an ounce of flesh or a spec. 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? >> i think for the republicans it will be a complete lovefest for judge gorsuch. for the democrats i think they are trying to figure out what to do because they do not have the votes to stop him. if they invoke a filibuster, the 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 gorsuch as an opportunity to bring up many of the things that trump has said and done and put gorsuch on the spot as to whether he would support those things. or whether they have raised significant legal questions. the more they try to put daylight between gorsuch and trump -- that helps gorsuch look better, but if it makes trump looked bad then democrats count that as a win. >> how can he prepare for these hearings? >> typically there are these "murder boards" at the white house where he is asked about

every potential issue you might he asked about. they've been talking about some of the answers that judge gorsuch might give to some questions that are put forward. that is usually a process they will go through. as jeff points out, there are some very specific questions that will be rising such as trump's travel ban executive order especially as a new one is trump travel ban may be in the throes of litigation again. you can imagine that discussion will make its way to hearings. >> do you think there will be a democrats at support these arenations? >> democrats looking for what they want their base to do. they know they can't win.

they want to lose in a way that the possibility of a filibuster at the tail end of the trump administration, or do they just want to show their followers, their constituents that they are fighting a legitimate president? certainly a legitimate nomination but certainly president obama was able to fill a year ago. his work available online at wsj.com. senior political reporter for politico at politico.com. thank you both for being with us. we appreciate it. >>-a lot of these kids look at , they seemideas

conversationally like a seinfeld episode. if only we had this and then this could happen. they felt we could do it like this. it is so much harder. >> tonight on q and a, wall street journal reporter looks at the startups in silicon valley and the young people who have ventured there with hopes of becoming the next big success story in her book valley of the gods. like the rush of hollywood actresses to l.a.. they become a waitress waiting for their big day. so many of these companies, instagram, uber, the people running them didn't just have a lucky break. the stories were years of coding and engineering. they have qualifications i can't even imagine. >> tonight at eight eastern on

c-span's q&a. >> our focus was to try to get justice for trayvon. all these obstacles were in place in our path. if something happens to them they wouldn't want answers. >> since it has been thrust on us, we understand there is a bigger pitch and something more there are other lives out there that we are trying to impact. >> his parents talks about their son's life and death. plus their experience with the they aresystem interviewed by wesley lowery, washington post national reporter covering law

enforcement, justice and race. >> what you think of the legacy and theson's life activism because of it. the group black lives matter and the phrase black lives matter in response. what you think about that if you think about that? what comes to mind? fourth trayvon was some girls as well have been killed and nobody has been held accountable. >> tonight on afterwards. watch c-span as president donald trump delivers his first a dress to a joint session of congress.

thehis is going to be busiest congress we have had in decades. >> following the speech, the yourratic response and reaction to the president's speech along with members of congress. live tuesday at 9 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. and listen live on the c-span radio app. >> education secretary betsy devos spoke at the annual conservative political action conference on thursday and commented on a trumped administration rescinding guidelines to public schools that allow transgender students the use of bathrooms that match their gender identity. this is 15 minutes.