it's a big moment for him, to be sure. do something that he and his team have put quite a bit of thought into antonin scalia's seat has had open for nearly a year now. the announcement just moments away. bill o'reilly coming up next. ♪ ♪ >> bill: hi, i am bill o'reilly, reporting from los angeles. thanks for watching us tonight. you are looking at a live picture from the white house, we where just moments from now, president trump will announce his supreme court selection. the present and the proposed justice within speak for a few moments. we will bring you everything life as it happens and then, have analysis with our fox news team. and the reason that this is so important is because the shape of the country will be decided by the supreme court.

and americans voted for a president based upon knowing that. if you look at the polls, for example, among white evangelical christians, something like 80% of them voted for donald trump because of the supreme court. it is a monumental occurrence that you are about to hear from the white house. why is that? because unfortunately, in our divided country, there are now four liberal justices and four either conservative or moderate traditional justices. it is a tie. the liberal supreme court justices believe it, and i am generalizing now, but this is, i don't think i'm going to be argued, that the constitution of the united states evolves with society. it is not the same as it was when thomas jefferson and

james madison and the founding fathers put it together. the conservatives believe that it should stay in it's tradition. here is president trump. [applauding] >> president trump: thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. when justice clea passed away suddenly last february, i made a promise to the american people, if i were elected president, i would find the very best judge in the country for the supreme courts. i promised to select someone who respects our laws and is representative of our

constitution and who loves our constitution and someone who will interpret them as written. this may be the most transparent judicial selection process in history. months ago as a candidate, i publicly presented a list of brilliant and accomplished people to the american electorate and pledged to make my choice from among that list. millions of voters said this was the single most important issue to them when they voted for me for president. i am a man of my word. i will do as i say. something that the american people have been asking for from washington for a very, very long time. [applauding]

thank you. today, i am keeping another promise to the american people by nominating judge neil gorsuch of the united states supreme court to be of the united states supreme court and i would like to ask george gorsuch and his wonderful wife, louise, to please step forward, please, louise, judge. here they come. here they come. [applauding] so, was not a surprise? was it? [applauding]

i have always felt that after the defense of our nation, the most important decision a president of the united states can make is the appointment of a supreme court justice. depending on their age, a justice can be active for 50 years and his or her decisions can last a century or more and can often be permanent. i took the task of this nomination very seriously. i have selected an individual whose qualities define really, and i mean closely defined, what we are looking for. judge gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline, and has earned bipartisan support. when he was nominated to the tenth circuit court of appeals, he was confirmed by the senate

unanimously. also, it is unanimous, can you believe that, nowadays, with what is going on? [applauding] does that happen anymore? does it happen? i think it is going to happen, may be again. also, with us tonight is maureen scalia, a woman loved by her husband and deeply respected by all. i am so happy she is with us. there she is. [applauding] thank you, marine. [applauding] thank you, maureen. she is really the ultimate representative of the late, great justice antonin scalia, whose image and genius was in my mind throughout the decision-making process.

not only are we looking at the writings of the nominee, and i studied them closely, but he is said to be among the finest and most brilliant, often times, the writings of any judge for a long, long time. and his academic credentials, something very important to me, that education has always been a priority, are as good as i have ever seen. he received his undergraduate degree from columbia with honors. he then received his law degree from harvard, also with honors. he was a truman scholar. after harvard, he received his doctorate at oxford, where he attended as a marshall scholar. one of the top academic honors anywhere in the world. after law school, he clerked on the supreme court for both justices by written white and anthony kennedy.

it is an extraordinary resume. as good as it gets. judge gorsuch was born and raised in colorado and was taught the value of independence, hardware, and public service. while in law school, he demonstrated a commitment to helping the less fortunate. he worked in both harvard prison legal assistance projects and harvard defenders programs. i studied every aspect of his life. he could have had any job at any law firm for any amount of money. but what he wanted to do with his career was to be a judge, to write decisions, and to make an impact by upholding our laws and our constitution. the qualifications of judge gorsuch are beyond dispute. he is the man of our country and a man who our country really needs and needs badly to ensure the rule of law and the rule of justice.

i would like to think senate leadership. i only hope that both democrats and republicans can come together for once, for the good of the country. congratulations to you and your family. may god bless you. may god bless our glorious nation. judge gorsuch, the podium, sir, is yours. [applauding] >> thank you. mr. president, thank you very much.

mr. president, mr. vice president, you and your team have shown a great courtesy in this process. you have even trusted me with the most solemn assignment. standing here in a house of history and acutely aware of my own imperfections, i pledge it if i am confirmed, i will do all of my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the constitutional laws of this great country. for the last decade, i have worked as a federal judge in a court that spans six western states, serving about 20% of the continental united states and about 18 million people. the men and women i have worked with at every level in our circuit are an inspiration to me. i have watched them fearlessly tending to the rule of law, and forcing the promises of our constitution, and living out daily there judicial, administering justice equally too rich and poor alike. following the law as without respect to their personal

political beliefs. i think of them tonight. of course, the supreme court's work is vital to not only a region of the country, but to the hole. vital to the production of the people's liberties under law and to the constitution on. the greatest charter of human liberty the world has ever know known. the towering judges that have served in this particular seat of the supreme court, including antonin scalia and robert jackson, are much in my mind at this moment. justice scalia was a lien of the law. agree or disagree with him, all of his companies on the bench, share his wisdom and his humor. and like them, i miss him. i began my legal career working for byron white, the last colorado and to serve on the supreme court. the only justice to lead the nfl in rushing. [laughter] he was one of the smartest and most courageous men i have ever

known. when justice white retired, he gave me the chance to work for justice kennedy, as well. justice kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious. like justice white, he taught me so much. i am forever grateful. if you have ever met judge david sentelle, you will know just how lucky i was to land a clerkship with him right out of school. thank you. these judges brought me up in the law. truly, i would not be here without them. today is as much of their day as it is mine. in the balance of my professional life, i had the privilege of working as a practicing lawyer and teacher. i have enjoyed wonderful colleagues who supports means so much to me at this moment. as it has year in and year out. practicing in the trial work, trenches of the law, i sought to

that when we judges do on our robes, doesn't make us any smarter. but it does it serve as a reminder of what is expected of us. impartiality and independence. collegiality and courage. as this process now moves to the senate, i look forward with speaking to members with both sides of the aisle. to answering their questions and to hearing their concerns. i consider the united states senate to the greatest deliberative body in the world. and i respect the important role the constitution affords it in the confirmation of our judges. i respect the fact that in our legal order, it is for congress and not the courts to write new laws. it is the rule of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge. stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands. i am so thankful tonight for my

family, my friends, and by faith. these are the things that keeps me grounded. they sustain me. to louise, my incredible life and companion of 20 years, my cherished daughters, who are watching on tv, and all of my family and friends. i cannot thank you enough for your love and for your prayers. i could not attempt this without you. mr. president, i am honored and i am humbled. thank you very much. [applauding]

[applauding] >> bill: all right, a very to the point ceremony. i have a couple of thoughts. i don't know the judge. but i did have dinner with justice scalia and spent about an hour with him. from what i understand, judge gorsuch is very much in the same mindset as antonin scalia. that means this, and you heard him reference it, you heard judge gorsuch reference it. he believes he is not in the business of making law. all right? some of the supreme court justices do believe that they have a right to improve the law. they would say, improve it, not just make it from scratch.

not judge gorsuch. so, he is going to basically take the laws that are passed by congress and then, rule whether they are constitutional or not because congress sometimes makes mistakes. then, when there is an argument about how to apply the law, he is going to rule in a traditional way, not in a progressive way. that is what we were talking about before the president took the mike. this is very important for everybody to understand. the progressive wing of the court, some say liberal, believes of the constitution evolves and is applied to what is happening in society at that time. example, abortion. the founding fathers would never, ever have put that into the constitution. yet, the supreme court did. they legalized abortion. that is one difference. a good difference for you to understand the mindset.

the conservative traditional wing, of which anthony kennedy, who gorsuch clerked under, is in, says, no, we are going to go back to the intent of the founding fathers and the people who forged the constitution that we all live under. that is their intent, that is what is most important, not the new evolution of society. so, judge gorsuch is in that category. he has two daughters when he is an episcopalian. he mentioned his faith. episcopalian, very close to catholicism. it is just the pope that separates the two religions. okay, so, donald trump, finally, then, i will get to our analysts, who are smarter than i am on this matter, did a very, very shrewd thing tonight. he put the democratic party in a tough spot. he said, this is a man that is

beyond reproach. his career is beyond reproach. and he is a man who loves his country, who served his country, and who really deserves respect. the democrats who will attack georgia gorsuch, that will happen momentarily, are going to have to be careful not to disrespect him in their opposition. there will be opposition. okay. the heavy odds are, unless there is something we don't know about the judge, believe me, he has been vetted every which way, that he will be on the supreme court. there will be a lot of political gamesmanship and back and forth in the senate and all of that. but if you were a betting person, it is 10-1 that he gets in. so, that is my say. let's bring in bret baier. what i want you to explain to the audience right now, bret, it is that it is likely, the democrats in the senate, most of

them, will oppose judge gorsuch because they want a liberal judge or somebody who favors a progressive wing. right now, it is possible to filibuster in the senate the judge's nomination. but if there is a new law that comes into effect, which is very possible, that filibuster goes away. explain that to us. >> right. as it stands now, democrats change the law, the way the senate operates, for cabinet nominees. it does not require 60 votes. they only need 51, 50 plus one, to get cabinet nominees through. that was a change done by the democrats and senate majority leader at the time harry reid back in 2013. what he didn't do is do the nuclear option, as they call it, for supreme court nominees. if it gets to the point where democrats are filibustering judge gorsuch, and mitch

mcconnell decides that they are going to change the rules, they have the votes to do that. and they could employ the nuclear option, in other words, 60 votes would be, 51, even for supreme court nominees. let me tell you -- >> bill: there would be a vote on the rules. i'm sorry, i misspoke. it wouldn't be a law. it will be a vote on the senate rules. the rules of the senate. okay, all the republicans, all 53 of them, would say, yes, we want our change of the rules, that would knock at the filibuster. that is very, very likely to happen, correct? >> here is what likely to happen. there will be an effort by the democrats to filibuster this nominee. now, why is that? does he have a great judicial background? yes. does he have qualifications? yes. why would they filibuster? because he is 49 years old.

he is conservative, in the mold of justice scalia. he writes exactly like him. and does this turned the court? know. but how many cases were decided 5-4? there were dozens of them in recent years. 5-4 decisions. now, the court's 4-4. there are some huge cases that have just been through. there are huge cases on pause waiting for oral arguments to go forward. if there is another conservative judge on the bench now, they would almost certainly go the conservative way in these rulings. democrats don't want to see that. they will do everything they can to stop it. but here is why they are going to have a problem. they have ten democrats up for reelection in states where trump won more than 60% of the counties in those states. ten of them. they are going to feel a lot of pressure because there will be hundreds of millions of dollars spent in coming weeks, bill, and

lobbying for and against judge gorsuch in these various states and those senate democrats, who are up for reelection, will feel the heat the most. >> bill: all right. but you've got to understand, and i know you do, the pressure the democratic party is going to be putting on these ten senators. they will get some democrats, joe manchin of west virginia, maybe mccaskill of missouri, maybe a few more. but i would be very surprised if they get enough to override the filibuster at 60 votes. now, i want to know the time frame. let's assume they don't get the 60 to override the filibuster and it continues. when can mcconnell say, we will change the rules, have the vote, then, bang, and a gorsuch is on the court? >> i think you would see that by march, by the end of march. >> bill: why so long? why a month? >> they will go through these hearings and then, you are going

to eventually get to the point where it is going to have to come out of committee to the senate floor and that is where you would have the votes and determine whether there is going to be a filibuster or not. that process -- >> bill: when will the hearings start? >> almost immediately. they will put the nomination officially up and we will see with the schedule holds but i am going to talk to senator mcconnell tonight for the 11:00 p.m. show, "special report." and senator grassley will be running the hearings tomorrow. i think they will move quickly to try to move these hearings forward. >> bill: all right, you figure a few days on the hearings. i mean, gorsuch has a pretty good resume. there is not a lot. they will grill him on the hobby lobby case, on the freedom of religion stuff. they will grill him on abortion, they will grill him on those kinds of things. but you've got to figure that it is a few days, it's not a few weeks, or am i wrong?

>> i think you might be a little shy, as far as how long it is going to take. democrats are going to use every possible question to get into his past. they are going to spend a lot of time. they are going to ask for all kinds of paperwork and that will take, and the discovery process for the committee, will take some time. i wouldn't think that it is going to go super speedy. remember, you are also going to come at the same time, have a lot of outside influence, on the process, a lot of money being spent. this is going to be like a campaign. this is going to be like knocking on doors. >> bill: tell me about the money being spent. what do you anticipate? television ads? what do you anticipate? >> everything. emails. just in the time that we have talked, i received 30 emails from different groups, lawmakers, all weighing in. there is going to be a massive social media email campaign. there will be television ads,

they will be canvassing in states where these democrats are facing reelection in 2018. and they will be efforts to pressure them on a number of different fronts. i am not talking one side. both sides will spend hundreds of millions of dollars. this is the process that we have now, that is why these supreme court nominations are so crucial, because it is, as you said at the top of the show, the shaping of the country. you've got congress that is battling, you have a president who can do what he can do, but it is really the supreme court that shapes our country one way or another. >> bill: absolutely. so, you expect the vote to come down in march, one way or the other, and then, the confirmation would then shortly after that. do you, and this is the final question for you, do you expect a smear? do you think it will be a smear campaign directed against a man like judge gorsuch? is that possible?

>> very possible. you have seen many nominees that get attacked and unbelievable ways. i think many of the democrats on the judiciary committee are going to attack him on substance and different questions. but there will be to outside groups that definitely try to go after him. that is why going through that history, his paperwork, his past, and really getting ready for this moment, they have been, i think, working on this for a number of weeks and waiting for this moment. this is president trump delivering on a campaign promise. but it is just the beginning of a battle. if they do use the nuclear option, that will change the senate forever. >> bill: all right. bret baier, thank you very much. let's go to shannon bream. as you may know, shannon covered the supreme court for fox news for many years. and she is an expert on neil gorsuch. so, tell me, bret baier just

said something very interesting. he expects smears from outside groups. directed at this judge. i mean, i look at the sky, i don't know how you smear a guy like this. his record of service is very distinguished, whether you agree with his rulings were not, do you concur that they are going to smear him? >> listen, if my inbox is any indication, like bret, i have received dozens of emails within minutes of the president announcing his name. there are a number of groups on the left that say that they are very concerned about him. most of them are pro-choice groups. although he doesn't have a record on abortion, because the rest of his decisions are so conservative, that he will be bad news for them. they are already starting that, saying he is unqualified and calling on democrats in the senate to absolutely block this. >> bill: let me stop you. how can you possibly be unqualified? this guy sits on a federal appeals court. he has a sterling record. he is the best education on the

planet. how could he possibly be unqualified? >> bill, you mentioned one of the decisions he is most well known for. he supported hobby lobby, two of the groups that challenge the obamacare contraception's mandate. because he has been strong another religious freedom issues, many in the pro-choice industry think that he is going to be bad news for them. >> bill: that is another matter. that is not unqualified. they just don't like him because he is not a progressive. we understand that. we see that. they are entitled to their opinion. but to say that he is not qualified to hold this position is insane. that is where i want to get out here. i don't know where this merits would come from. i don't know what direction. when trump ran for president, i knew the smears were coming, and i told him. i knew what. but this man, judge gorsuch? i don't know how they could do it. >> it is going to be tough. you know the american bar

association, a lot of people think leans into the left. they gave him a unanimous, well-qualified rating, which is the best that you can do, years ago, when it he was up for the seat in the tenth circuit. that group has endorsed him. he made it through the senate without a single objection. a number of those democratic senators are still there, including a senate minority leader, chuck schumer, dipped down like dianne feinstein, others pray they will say it ist because he has a record. but he is their worst nightmare. he cofounded a paper when he was at columbia called "the fed" because he thought there was too much pc on campus. this is not the kind of guy they want to see take the seat and felt that ninth position. he has critical of the left. let me read you something he has wrote. "american liberals have been addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box. instead of getting there attended on the ballot box and to convince voters, and to go get their arguments, they have increasingly relied on judges to be activists for them." he called them out, the left is not going to like any of that.

>> bill: they are not going to like that. we all know about that. it is about the stability of the debate. i think that if the left starts to smear him, that is just going to be another nail in the progressive coffin. i don't think americans are going to really want to see that were tolerated that. shannon, we appreciate it very much. we have martha maccallum standing by, as well. i want to ask you, martha, if you are there, is she there? >> i'm here. >> bill: we don't know. we just saw a bookcase. >> [laughs] i am a ghost. >> bill: wears that bookcase? >> i don't know. >> bill: here is what i want from you. okay. i ran my mouth at the beginning of the program, which i am paid to do, and everyone enjoyed so much. and i said that the court is divided 4-4 between 1 group that

wants an evolving constitution and the other group that wants the intent of the founding fathers to rule. am i oversimplifying this? >> i think it is absolutely true. you talk about textual lists and originalists. they are the people that believe the way the founding fathers wrote those words in the constitution is what they wanted to continue, to be a basis for making laws, all the way through the course of history. liberal judges believe that there is room for interpretation, based on the evolution of the country and its changing morals. this person, neil gorsuch, this judge, who was just named by president trump, falls into the originalists category. that is where people say he does so while on the scalia-ness test. i would also remember, we have seen on paces dome at cases,

judge roberts, the judge to holp obamacare, sandra day o'connor, others, you never know. he appears at this moment to be a true originalist and people who know him well, know his work well, believe he is very must like antonin scalia. >> bill: people watching, they don't know intimately what scalia was promoting. but you do and i do. and the promotion, he got very angry, by the way, even though he was friends with ruth bader ginsburg and the progressives, i asked him that when i had dinner with them. i asked him, doesn't it drive you crazy that your peers on the court to see it so differently than you see it? doesn't that make you angry? he said, i don't take it personally. i tried to persuade them. i usually fail. i said, what is better for the country? better to have a vibrant debate in the supreme court or is a better for the judges to say,

you know what, we have a constitution. it was put into place for a reason. we got to go by that, rather than what the flavor of the month is, what the trend of the month is. i didn't really get an answer from him. i think he was bored with me by that point. he was looking for breadsticks. >> [laughs] >> bill: but that is the essence of this matter. donald trump was elected because moaning of the people who voted for him knew that the supreme court, one more just as in the progressive camp, would absolutely change the face of this nation. >> it is one of the very interesting things to watch here, donald trump may have two picks. when you look across the history of the most recent republican presidents, you can go george bush and george h.w. bush and ronald reagan, all got two picks over the course of their time there. they all started with a more moderate pick. sandra day o'connor, souter,

roberts. ren came back to the second round, they each picked someone who was a stronger originalist, you could argue, and samuel alito and thomas and scalia himself. he may get two picks. one of the things to watch for is justice kennedy. now, he was appointed by a republican, ronald reagan, but may decide that there have been some suggestions that he could consider retiring. he is 79, i think 80 years old at this point. he might want a republican president to replace him, which is somewhat traditional. ginsburg chose not to do that. you got some heat from that from liberals because it would have been a moment for that she could have taken advantage of. but kennedy is a swing vote, bill. he'll be watching this very closely to see what people do and to decide whether or not he wants to retire. >> bill: here is my foolish take on this. again, i will tell the audience, i am not an expert on the supreme court. please understand this. kennedy is going to stay to

mentor gorsuch. they are friends. >> he did clerked for him. >> bill: he is not going to quit in the first couple of years that neil gorsuch -- again, neil gorsuch will be confirmed unless there is something we don't know about him, which, to me, would be impossible at this juncture. so, kennedy will stay. the person that may not stay is ginsburg. now, she wants to. she is 83. she doesn't want to trump to appoint anybody very. she is very, very last one, perhaps, next to sonya soto mayor, the most liberal judge. with all due respect, judge ginsburg has fallen asleep during deliberations. not all the time, but a number of times. she is 83. so, she may go, i would say, before kennedy goes. i am almost convinced because kennedy and gorsuch are friends and kennedy will take an interest in him. and mentor him as he comes in.

>> they have a different legal philosophy. kennedy is more of a moderate and gorsuch's more conservative, as we have been discussing. it depends. we look at this hearing, he may say, i would like a republican president, i don't know if he is going to be here for four or eight years. >> bill: it is all speculation at this point. all right, martha, thank you very much. we are going to take a break. then, we will bring in charles krauthammer, who is working overtime today, to talk about the politics of this. so, we gave you the primer on who he is at what the corridors and the struggle and all of that. now, there is a big political component in this country coming up. perhaps, the biggest we have seen since the president was elected. i will talk to charles about that as "the factor" continues from southern california. ythingp has something in common. whether it's expedited overnight...

...or shipped around the globe, ...it's handled by od employees who know that delivering freight... ...means delivering promises. od. helping the world keep promises.

i'm all-business when i, travel... even when i travel... for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade

in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges. what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro. >> announcer: "the o'reilly factor," the number one cable news show for 16 years and counting. >> bill: continuing now with the lead story, 49-year-old neil gorsuch is the nominee for the supreme court. president trump gave his reasons a few moments ago. then, the judge himself went up and suitably thanked everybody for the great honor. let's bring in charles krauthammer, who is in

washington watching the proceedings. so, let's talk politics. it is probably true that the stalwart democrats like senator schumer and congresswoman pelosi won't directly smear judge gore search because that would be political suicide. instead, they will farm it out to their vicious head groups, the -- to really try to damage the man in the eyes of the public. that would give the democratic party cover for not voting for him. however, if they do that, i think it is going to go back and the democrats big time and hurt that party in measurably. what say you? >> i don't think so. unless you can find personal peccadilloes in this man's life, like you said, that doesn't look very likely given his history, the way that you smear a candidate for the supreme court is not by saying he is a secret

wife abuser but you do it by taking the outcome of his rulings and pretending that that was willed by the judge. for example, you take hobby lobby. you take the case of the little sisters of the poor. these are people who are on religious grounds, do not want to subsidize or to give contraceptives as part of their health care plans. so, what you do is you pretend, and your 32nd ads, you say this is a man who is a theocrat, a man who wants to see people denied contraception, a man who wants to see religious extremists be able to impose their views on their employees who are in no position to resist because they need a job. so, what you do if you take the outcome and then, he would impute the outcome to what the judge wants to do. the amazing thing is that in his own statement, judge gorsuch

said a really wise and interesting thing. he said any judge who likes the outcome of all of his cases is a bad judge. in other words, you are taken to your outcome, sometimes, where you don't particularly want to go. where, if you were a legislator, you would go the other way. but you are not a legislator. you are a judge. you are an interpreter of law and you say principle compels me to have this outcome. >> bill: because the constitution says this and this falls under protection of the constitution. >> if you could be a believer of the opposite policy -- >> bill: you could say politically, my job is to uphold the constitution. okay. here's the thing. in order for that strategy to prevail, it would have to be restrained, which we don't see in america anymore and politics. there is no restraint. i expect, right away, for the bomb throwers to come out with

"he's a misogynist," "he doesn't like people" ," real personal stuff. and they will comb and try to find any kind of -- an order for this campaign to besmirch them to work, they got to get through to the folks, they can't do theoretical, they got to go, "he's bad, he's evil." i expect that happen to some extent. >> it always happens. it began with ork. ton kennedy is on the floor of the senate, and he says that robert bork's america is in america where women have to have backroom abortions, where blacks aren't allowed at the counter, et cetera. in other words, interpreting the decisions he made by the outcome and totally distorting what his views really are. but that began with kennedy. he created a tradition that goes until today and today, very

clever groups on the left will use either words from his decisions, even if it is in a footnote or outcomes to say, as you say, he is a misogynist, he is insensitive to civil rights, he is not up with the times. and he will relegate women to back woman room abortions. a >> bill: if the democratic party does that in their hearings, it is going to fly back at them like crazy because that party is already really in trouble. they are really in trouble, the democrats. that is my "talking points" tonight. >> i don't think it flies back on them at all. >> bill: you think they got away with clean with that? >> it didn't hurt them after bork. >> bill: donald trump as president. donald trump as president. >> the republicans lost the presidency for eight years twice. it isn't as if it is a slam dunk. the country is divided on social issues. they are going to put their

finger on the hot button, social issues, and try to show how this judge and this kind of reasoning leads you to a place that will offend half the country. that's how it works. >> bill: make a prediction. they see on the supreme court in three months? >> absolutely. slam dunk. >> bill: i agree. charles krauthammer, everybody. when we come back, we will have more analysis. and we will go with juan and lisa boothe. they are going to weigh in on what charles just said and we will have some further comments as "the factor" continues all across the usa and all around the world. y282uy ywty

>> bill: continuing in our there our thorough coverage of neil gorsuch, 49 years old from colorado, as president trump's nominee to the supreme court. it took about 30 seconds for senator charles schumer to issue a statement. you know he had it written before. i'm just going to quote part of the statement. "judge court search has repeatedly cited with corbis it on my corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility towards women's rights, , and most troubling, ud in ideological approach to jurisprudence. it makes me strong it can be a strong independent justice on the court." that is pretty mild. let's bring in juan williams and lisa boothe. all right, juan juan. i disagree with charles. i think if the democrats push it too hard against gorsuch, it will hurt that party. you say? >> right now, the base of the party, and a very politically polarized times, wants to see some fight out of the democrats. i think given what happened in

the past, and the recent past with merrick garland, where republicans are sad that has nomination, i think it is the longest any nominee has had to wait for hearings and the hearings never happened. i guess you could say the clock is still taking. the fact that the republicans were able to thwart merrick garland lead i senator today to say that deceit was stolen by the republicans i. >> bill: that is not the question. the question is, yes, the democrats, some of them, want payback. lisa. what we have now is a nominee, who is pretty solid. pretty solid. if you will personally attack the man, the folks, it is the folks. they will go, you know what, i have had enough of these democrats. and on the merrick garland thing, the reason that that was not voted upon was the theory, let the people vote. and the people voted in the presidential election. if they wanted garland,

hillary clinton would be president. >> it also would have been the first time in nearly 80 years a supreme court was both nominated and confirmed in a presidential year. regardless of that point, the democratic party as a whole is irrelevant here. what matters is getting those eight additional senate photos that republicans need to break a filibuster. if you look at the voices that have been out there, about the supreme court nomination, you look at the john hester's of the world, the individuals who are running in states where president trump won by double digits, those of the people you go after. to the earlier point, there is already the judicial crisis network is up on air in four of those states were donald trump won by double digits. part of the $10 million ad money coming in about this because that is how big business, bill. >> bill: that is irrelevant. if they can't overturn a filibuster, then, they will go to with bret baier described. >> lisa, how can you say democrats don't matter when you

said that democrats matter? >> not the democratic party as a whole, though. >> but it does matter. here's the thing that matters. given his record, and given the fact that you still have justice and anthony kennedy on the court, i don't think this will be about abortion. remember, he is not going to change the ideological balance of the court on an issue like abortion. similarly, , on the key changes that on affirmative action. >> bill: juan, would you vote for him in the senate? >> if i was a democrat in the senate, i would make sure that my constituents understood that i was hurt by what happened with merrick garland. >> bill: he would do payback? >> i am not a potted plant who is sitting here while republicans do whatever they want and to nominate their people. >> bill: i don't have time but i can make a good argument that you are a plant. [laughter] lisa, last word. >> that doesn't take much of an argument. >> i am a dandelion, bill. >> for the one fourth of the voters that so this is a primary

reason why they voted, 57% of those men for president trump. this is a smartly done by the president of united states during this election, by putting that list forward and making it a primary reason for voters. >> bill: is the way the president presented it was a very smart. it wasn't like the migrant thing. we got to go. you guys got to watch what happens. "the factor"'s tip of the day, more pc madness, this time, directed at mom's. "the tip," moments away. without the unnecessary additives you don't. loudspeaker: clean up, aisle 4. alka-seltzer plus liquid gels.

the market.redict but through good times and bad... ...at t. rowe price... ...we've helped our investors stay confident for over 75 years. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. (vo) do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light. do not go gentle into that good night. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> bill: factor "tip of the day," and outrageous insult to mothers. but first. because, right now, saudi arabia is fighting al-qaeda in yemen.

incorrect, jim. anyone on american soil is under the protection of the constitution. that would be foolish. he is not an echo chamber, we want many views here to keep the program interesting. come on. we help suffering people if we can. i appreciate that, nancy. generating a lot of attention, posted on billoreilly.com.

i disagree. immigrants who come to america ought to be treated with respect if they obey the rules. america is a place of freedom and opportunity and we need immigrants to continue our legacy. i am giving them as gifts that have been graciously received. wow. how nice of you, michael. i am glad you liked the series. finally, the "tip of the day." political correctness ruining the planet. in great britain, the government run national health service has been told not to call pregnant women expectant mothers. some biological women who identify as with men may be offended by the term mother. i have a term that includes mother. no, that would get me fired.

that is insane. but it is true. on march 28th, the new book will be out. called "old school: life in the sane lane." i wrote this book, it's about just what you heard. crazy stuff. seeping into our society. next time i go to london, i'm going to ask all the pregnant women i see, are you an expectant mother? i hope i am arrested. back to "tip of the day" ," figt the madness. that's it for us tonight. please check out the fox news factor web site. also, we would like you to spout out about "the factor" from anywhere in the world. name and town if you wish to opine. word of the day, do not be a jack and apes. we will take a hard look at california wanting to be a separate state.

please remember that the spin stops right here, we are definitely looking out for you. >> tucker: fox news alert, president trump selected judge neil gorsuch of the tenth circuit court of appeals to be on the supreme court. ten ted cruz will give us his reaction. welcome to "tucker carlson tonight," also tonight, the temporary ban on refugees, one illegal immigrant was opposed to it is here to say his. but back to the nomination of judge gorsuch. president trump had this to say. >> i am keeping another promise to the american people. by nominating judge neil gorsuch of the united states supreme court to be