that senator chris murphy plans to introduce legislation to block president trump's revised travel ban. the connecticut democrat had offered a bill to keep the administration from enforcing the administration's original order. the story says democrats face an uphill battle to block it through legislation. they would need 60 votes to clear the senate, which would require the support of at least a dozen g.o.p. senators. >> c span, where history unfolds daily. it was created in 1979 and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> c-span's numerous welcomes this week's nan aron. the founder and president of alliance for justice. nan aron has long been a voice on the progressive side of things about the judicial system of the united states and long

been involved in court selection process. thanks for being our guests this week. let me introduce lisa, congressional reporter from the los angeles times, and the u.s.a. today supreme court correspondent, richard. lisa, you were up first. >> i think we'll open with attorney general jeff sessions big news this week, after the reports that he did in fact have some meetings with the russian ambassador and then of course decided to recuse himself from any potential federal investigation. i know that your group and others have called for more action beyond that. they want him to resign. what's the difference here? is recusal from any federal investigation enough or are there still those calling for resignation? >> so he's only recusing himself for a very limited purpose.

and that is looking into being part of that investigation, into the 2016 campaign, before the election. he's not recused himself for after the election. but it certainly brings into sharper focus his role as attorney general for us. we've known jeff sessions going back to 1986, when we were very troubled when he was nominated for a judgeship to a district court in alabama. and there were very serious claims about his involvement in civil rights cases making racist statements. we know jeff sessions really well. and we think, inment one, number one, that he at this point probably should be asked to resign.

i don't think he's going to resign. but having gone before the committee, having made, i think just failed to give accurate answers to senator franken's questions, it's very much in keeping with the testimony that he gave at the senate judiciary committee in '86. again, it's in keeping with testimony he gave just a few weeks ago, in connection with his role as attorney general. and that is, he fudged the facts. he gave misleading answers. and even if you look at his questionnaire for attorney general, you see a whole host of incomplete and erroneous answers. so we think, as a top law enforcement officer in the united states, it's probably best for him for the senate, for the country, that he step aside. >> nan, i was looking at the

perjury law and what is required to call something perjury. it has to be under oath, it has to be material, it has to be false. and then the last thing is it has to be intentionally false. everybody says gee, it looks like he's four for four but almost impossible to prove that. given that it's almost impossible to prove and therefore you probably can't expect him to resign, given what he was saying yesterday, is it sort of opportunistic on the part of groups like yours who were so opposed to him for a number of reasons, to try to tease upon this russia testimony to get him out of office or to build pressure on him, because your concerns about him are really not as related to russia as they are about race and civil rights and other issues over the course of his career? >> good question. i agree with you, the standard for perjury is very high. and proving intent is a very high bar. but we don't think he needs to

be found guilty of perjury in order to step aside as attorney general. the fact is, over the years, and even recently, at his hearing before the senate judiciary committee for attorney general we just have seen a systematic avoidance of giving clear honest answers to pretty probing questions by the senators, particularly the democrats. i think they spelled out a number of areas they wanted answers to. i think senator franken was right to ask him about russia. and i see a pattern of practice on his part of simply evading the truth in order -- for political purposes. and i think, really the country demands and needs more from an

attorney general. than what we're getting from jeff sessions frankly. >> we do want to get to president trump's pick for the supreme court, neil gorsuch. but before that, i did want to ask you briefly about president trump's executive actions and we saw the legal challenge to his travel ban the courts in fact halted the order that would have -- that was banning arrivals from the seven predominantly muslim countries. do you see other legal actions coming or expected on some of president trump's executive actions? i'm thinking particularly of the immigration order. is there room for the courts to weigh in on this or are these really matters that don't have a lot of recourse, because they are administrative actions that he is able to take?

and in the immigration order the direction he's giving to homeland security on the deportation. >> two answers to that. one is i have no idea what his new order will say, so it's hard to predict what -- whether or not it will spur litigation or not. but two, i certainly think that the litigation that occurred, in the context of those -- of that executive order on immigration put in great focus for us the critical role of the judiciary. we've got republicans controlling the executive branch. congress. and the only branch not under the control of republicans is the judiciary. and we saw some amazing things happen as a result of that order. we saw four district court judges not all democratic

appointees raise questions about the ban. we saw the ninth circuit again republican and democratic appointees on that court. they refused to go along with that ban. and it really puts a spotlight on the critical role of the judiciary at all levels. but it certainly puts in context the gorsuch nomination, because he will obviously -- he obviously is being considered for a seat on the supreme court. and that supreme court will be the ultimate word on so many issues facing americans. and it makes the hearings and the inquiry into his confirmation that much more important. >> so two weeks and the senate will begin the confirmation hearings of judge gorsuch.

are there thought on -- >> well, we are going to talk on, you know, what's going to happen in the senate, what's going to happen in the hearings. we want to talk about how this is going to play out. but i want to give you an opportunity to say why you think he's unqualified. you've put out the first large report from what we expect to be many from liberal interest groups. let me phrase it this way. there were a lot of people probably, including some democrats, who breathed a sigh of relief, not for ideological reasons but because neil gorsuch is a credible appellate court judge. he didn't come out of left field, which some people were maybe concerned about with some of the people on trump's list of 21. he was not william pryor, who is from alabama and had perhaps a lot more objections from democrats and liberal groups. he's got ties to washington. he is an originalist an intellectualist, which on his face means he's going to call them as he sees them based on

the text of the laws the text of the constitution. you've done this report. why do you feel that he is so far out of the mainstream, when it appears that he's probably in the republican mainstream in the conservative mainstream for a spot on the supreme court? >> i would say you're right in that conventional wisdom in washington is that he's very much in the mold of a mainstream republican. he presents well. he's courteous polite. no one questions either his intellect or really his integrity at this point. but that is not the end of the inquiry. and what we have done at alliance for justice is review many, many of his opinions on the 10th circuit court of

appeals. he's been on that court for 10 years. and from that review, we come to know a man and a judge who almost always sides with the powerful and the wealthy, at the expense of everyday people, a man who does not bring an objective open mind to decision making, but an individual and a judge who has a predisposition to ruling in a certain direction. i would say if you are a child with disabilities, if you are a consumer looking to sue wall street if you are an environmentalist, if you are a woman who has spoken out in the workplace for equal rights, if you are a woman seeking access to reproductive health if you're a worker who has been

harmed on the job, he is not your friend. he rules regularly systematically against the vulnerable against people. and i think really, the best window into his judicial decision making are a handful of cases that focus on children with disabilities. and in case after case, children get the raw end of the deal. with him, on the 10th circuit. i would encourage people to read our report. it's on our website allianceforjustice.org because you see an individual who has really a very rigid approach to the law and is very result-oriented. he is not a person before whom you can go in and plead a case

and hope that both sides will be heard. he is a judge who really knows where he's gonna be, even before the lawyers open their mouths. and the people who are victimized are workers children consumers environmentalists and women. >> just a quick follow-up before we get to the process in the senate. and that is, do you think that that's because he views the constitution or the statutes that are pertinent to the case a certain way, or do you think he's going backwards? he wants this outcome and he finds a way to do it? because the former would be acceptable, if he's got good reasons, and the latter, for a judge, would not be. >> interesting that you ask that question, because one of the things he has written is that in his judicial world and the way in which he sees things, he would like to look backward rather than forward.

and he even says that. so that means established cases rights that we all take for granted, including lgbt rights women's rights, roe vs. wade, protections for workers consumers, environmentalists that have been on the books for decades, he would overturn. one of the striking things that we have found in talking about judge gorsuch's record is that even trump voters, even conservatives, republicans really don't want to go backwards, don't want a court that's going to relitigate so much of the landmark cases precedents that have been on the books forever. and i think it's important to

note that he himself has talked about looking backwards rather than looking forwards. i think as a society, we've got many complicated problems ahead of us, many questions that need to be answered. we ought to have our judges and our courts solving those rather than bringing us back and relitigating all -- so much of the cases that have really been such solid accomplishments for us in society. >> okay. let's talk a little bit about senate mass. we know it takes 60 votes right now to confirm a court nominee and, of course, republicans have 52 votes, the majority in the senate, so it would take eight democrats to get mr. gorsuch -- judge gorsuch over the finish line. but we also know that leader mcconnell could very well drop that by invoking the so-called nuclear option which would

essentially end the filibuster, dropping the vote threshold down to a simple majority, which would make for easy passage. we also know that democrats are mixed over this nomination. they're not exactly sure if they're going to fight it or who is going to fight it or not. what's the strategy here for groups like yours, and what do you say to this concern among democrats that if they block this judge who, by many measures, is considered more mainstream among republicans that leader mcconnell and the republicans will drop that threshold down to a simple majority and that will make for smooth sailing for any other nominees that may come to the court under the trump administration? >> a couple answers. one, neil gorsuch is donald trump's judge. and in that respect his record

reflects those of many of his cabinet officials. if you look at his views on corporate rights, hobby lobby his views on allowing right to choose access to reproductive health services, his views on corporate rights, consumers environmentalists, he's very much in line with many if not most of trump's cabinet initials, number one. number two, we always expect at the beginning, when a candidate is going around and meeting senators that that candidate will be most polite, that the press will focus on those interviews, not so much the subs of the inter-- substance of the interviews but the presentation, how it looks, how he presents so i think we aren't yet at the

point, and we will be approaching it next week, where we begin to focus on his record. and i think that once the democrats, once the public has an opportunity to learn about judge gorsuch's record, they will come to the conclusion that he is not fit to serve on the supreme court. that he will, if confirmed make life much worse for americans. he will make things much harder for american workers. and he is not the right person for a seat, for a lifetime appointment on the supreme court. >> and then what do you think happens? >> i think we will get the democrats to stand up. i think we'll get the democrats to filibuster. i think that most of them have really not had an opportunity, because of all these other

issues, pressing issues of the day. but once they do have an opportunity to really focus on this record, they will come to the conclusion that he should not be confirmed. and i can't tell you what's gonna happen after that. it might be that republicans attempt to go nuclear by doing away with the filibuster. if they do that, they'll have to own that. and by owning it, it means doing away with the filibuster for the rest of this congress. it could come back to bite them, doing away with the filibuster. i don't know. the answer to that and certainly i could sit here and tell you i'd be hopeful that we'll get republicans to join with democrats in voting no on this confirmation. i can't say that is going to happen. but i don't think we're there yet. and it's hard to predict what the republicans will do with

employing the nuclear option. i'm reasonably certain though, that democrats will come together after reviewing the record and hearing his testimony and vote no. >> we have six minutes left. >> so just briefly on that, doesn't it come down to, how do you want to lose? i hate to put it that way, but you either lose by not mounting a admissible, not getting to 60 votes -- and there's a lot of speculation that you could have eight or more democrats who would not go for the filibuster but then allow themselves to vote no on the actual nomination, and the nomination would go through 53 to 54 to 47 or 46, whatever that number is. wouldn't it be better to lose that way and maintain the filibuster for if and when a president trump -- and we do want to talk about this -- gets to replace an anthony kennedy or a ruth baird ginsburg or a

brier, which in this town would be world war iii. right now we have somebody in the scalia mode. if there is a next one, and we all know the ages of these three justices, the next one would totally alter the court. wouldn't you rather have the filibuster in place for that? >> a few answers. number one, we are in this to win. i think we will win. number two, there's no lock on this seat to find a scalia clone, as neil gorsuch has been described. as i recall, that seat should have been filled by merrick garland, that enjoyed support from both democrats and republicans. in fact, it was orrin hatch republican senator from utah, that called president obama

after the society became vacant by justice scag scalia's death and recommended merrick garland. so i don't necessarily see this as the scalia seat. and this is the real fight. this is the most important fight and we should not be looking down the road at who is -- who might vacate their seat. this is the seat. this is the fight at the moment. neil gorsuch is not the right judge for this seat. given his background. and we've only talked about his record. what we haven't talked about really is the hearing itself. he's not being considered for just a cabinet appointment lasting a few years. but he's been considered for a lifetime appointment. and therefore, the bar will have to be much higher than it was set for a cabinet official.

he's gonna have to answer questions. he's going to have to tell the committee perhaps how he might have ruled on some of these cases. we know he can't talk about how he would rule in the future. but i think it's up to neil gorsuch to provide full, complete, honest answers to questions posed by the democratic senators. and hopefully republican senators. and i also think the bar will be set a lot higher because of what happened with jeff sessions, because those hearings were very short. very superficial. and i think now people realize that we're not just considering a nominee for attorney general but one for the highest court in the land. and he's got to come before the american people and provide very

detailed information about his views on a whole number of critical issues that affect the lives of every american. >> we only have two minutes left. final question? >> well, i was just going to ask about organizing and activism around this issue, as we head toward the confirmation hearing. obviously democrats are still sort of soul-searching, after the electoral loss in november but also we see, very energized with the street protests that have been going on. what are we going to see around this issue? >> i'm very heartened to see and learn that a lot of the town hall meetings around the country, people are raising neil gorsuch's name. in fact, at a recent town hall, a 14-year-old boy asked his senators about neil gorsuch. i find in speaking to people across the country that the

level of interest, in particular on the supreme court, is higher than it's ever been, which to me is amazing. i've attended groups focus groups and unlike previous years, people are keenly aware that republicans denied a very qualified candidate for a seat on the supreme court. it surprises me. and therefore, i think the approach that will be taken to neil gorsuch will be one in which there will be heightened public interest and public attention to what happened. >> i'm going to close with a question, a brief question, suggested by richard wolf. that is, did justice ruth bader ginsburg do a -- by not resigning during the obama

administration? >> oh, these are such personal, personal matters. and in hind -- hindsight is always 20/20. i do know there were people calling for her to step down a few years ago, when it would have been timely and appropriate for a successor to be named and probably to be confirmed. i know there are others who came to her defense and said, listen, this is her decision to make and hers alone. these are very, very tough tough personal questions. and i really defer to her decision in that regard. >> thank you for being our guest this week. we know it will be a very busy month for you. appreciate your time. >> thanks so much for having me. thanks for the questions.

>> newsmakers is back. we've just spoken with nan aron, the founder and leader of alliance for justice a progressive group very active in the federal judiciary. lisa, los angeles times chicago tribune, and richard wolf, our two questioners. at the end, when you were to go about strategy on the neil gorsuch supreme court nomination and nan said, we're in it to win it. there's no lock on this seat. but many of your questions were about the progress tism of having a -- pragmatism of having a republican president with a list of 21 judges he wants to appoint to the court. this one is pretty much in the mainstream, while others might not be. why are they so opposed to this particular person? >> well, a group like here's is going to be opposed to almost any justice -- i would say any justice that president trump or virtually any republican president nominates.

what's interesting is you have a lot of people on the left saying this is not the nomination to go to the mat about. it's another scalia, and we could debate to what extent neil gorsuch is scalia or not. but replacing a conservative with a conservative. her argument and i think the argument of the liberal groups is this is the only one to focus on. let's not start to strategize, talk ourselves out of going to the mat on this by saying, ooh what happens if leader mcconnell goes nuclear and gets rid of the filibuster, and then what would happen the next time et cetera et cetera? they feel they're in it to win it. who knows what will come up. who knows whether there's a smoking gun. who knows what the questioning will be at the hearings. who knows whether eight democrats will not go along with say -- who knows whether they won't get the filibuster out of the democratic party? so, you know, they're just going to go to the mat. the truth is, if they did the opposite and preserved the

filibuster and you get to a situation down the road where it's president trump or republican president replacing a ginsburg or a briar or a kennedy, mcconnell can get rid of the filibuster then if he can't get over 60 votes. they might as well go to the mat this time, i think is what she's saying. >> now, this is a c-span audience, so they know the cabinet really well. what would the implications be? nan aron suggested that if leader mcconnell invokes the nuclear option for supreme court nominees -- now the democratic leader had earlier invoked it for lower nominations. butbut she said he would own it and it might come back to haunt him in the future. >> right. there's a real concern on capitol hill that if they do get rid of the filibuster for the supreme court nominee, it will open the floodgate to basically do away with the 60-vote

threshhold the filibuster, on any other legislative action. and you're right. senate majority leader harry reid at the time -- well, he was minority leader at the time -- did -- i'm trying to think back, majority minority. anyway, they did get rid of it for the -- i had to think for a second there. for the nominees, which is why president trump has been so easily able to confirm most of his cabinet choices. of course, with delays, but they are all getting through on a simple majority vote. the concern is that this would then really end it forever. and you know, that's not necessarily true. you could always work to reinstate it but that would really change the dynamic in the senate. folks know the senate is the place that moves a little more slowly. the house is more the will of the people. the senate is a place where you really do need to sort of work together in a more bipartisan way. that would fundamentally change the operation of

the senate is a place where you really need to work together in a more bipartisan way and that would fundamentally change the operation of congress. >> critics of the profession would become more like the house. >> exactly. >> so we have one minute left. would you talk about the court operating with eight justices right now and what the concerns are with their spring calendar and cases that may be at risk with fewer justices on the bench. last term they only had four decisions i think that were 4-4. therefore nothing happened. they've pushed most of the more controversial cases to tend of the calendar. it's possible neil gorsuch will be there but even in march there

are cases. a property rights. a class action case. and most notably there's a case involving transgender rights, the virginia student who's 17 years old who wants to be able to go to the bathroom of his choice and the school district blocking him. if that case comes up an there's a question whether that could get kicked back to the fourth circuit because of the trump administration if that case or another one locks up at 4-4 what would probably happen now is they would wait until the judge or someone else is seated and then try to rehear the case presumably in the fall rather than issue more decisions which do nothing but up hold the lower court in that region of the country. so, yes, you've got several cases that are pointing toward 4-4, and i think in this case rather than last term, you would wait for the ninth justice and rehear the