03/22/17 03/22/17 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from pacifica, this is democracy now! >> i disputed my termination and ultimately one. this was a seven-year battle. seven different judges heard my cases. one felt against me. the judge was neil gorsuch. amy: as confirmation hearings continue for supreme court nominee neil gorsuch, we will look at one of his most controversial cases when he ruled against a truck driver who got fired after he abandoned his broken down trailer in order to avoid freezing to death in subzero temperatures. we will hear from the trucker

and senator al franken. companysurd to say this is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. that is absurd. amy: we will also look at neil gorsuch's views on citizens united and the $10 million spent in dark money to push his confirmation. then we speak to two victims of racial profiling in the nation's airports. when is a former north carolina police chief, the other is a lawyer suing the trump administration over its targeting of sanctuary cities. both men were recently detained and questioned. we will find out what happened. all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and

peace report. i'm amy goodman. supreme court nominee neil gorsuch is heading to capitol hill today for his third day of confirmation hearings. on tuesday, he was questioned for over 10 hours by members of the senate judiciary committee. gorsuch faced intense scrutiny over his decision to rule against a truck driver whose employer illegally fired him for deserting a trailer so he wouldn't freeze to death. this is minnesota democratic senator al franken. >> it is absurd. to say this company is in its because heire him made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. that is absurd. now i had a career in identifying absurdity. [laughter] and i know it when i see it.

and it makes me, you know, it makes me question your judgment. amy: senate minority leader chuck schumer is calling on the senate to delay a vote on gorsuch for as long as trump's -- as long as the fbi is investigating the trump campaign. what's to be moving so forward on fast on confirming a supreme court justice with a lifetime appointment while this big gray cloud of an fbi investigation hangs over the presidency. amy: we'll have more on gorsuch's confirmation hearings after headlines. president trump is heading to capitol hill today to continue lobbying for the republican health care plan, which is set for a full house vote thursday. on tuesday, trump reportedly threatened republican lawmakers during a closed-door meeting in efforts to convince them to vote for the bill. the "washington post" reports trump singled out north carolina republican mark meadows, saying -- "i'm gonna come after you, but i know i won't have to, because i

know you'll vote 'yes.'" meadows is head of the far right wing freedom caucus, the republican plan, calling it obamacare lite, saying it does not go far enough to dismantle the affordable care act. in an unprecedented move, the us government pulled out of a scheduled human rights hearing tuesday. the hearing was set to cover the trump administration's deportation plans its attempts , to ban people from six majority muslim nations, and its approval of the $3.8 billion dakota access pipeline. the american civil liberties union wrote -- "the trump administration's refusal to engage with an independent human rights body, which has played a historic role in fighting impunity and barbaric military dictatorships in the region, sets a dangerous precedent that mirrors the behavior of authoritarian regimes and will only serve to embolden them." labor secretary nominee alex acosta is set to appear before a senate committee for his confirmation hearing today.

the longtime republican lawyer is the second person trump has nominated to be labor secretary after his first pick, andrew puzder, withdrew amid reports of widespread sexual harassment and labor and safety violations at his chain restaurants, as well as allegations of domestic violence against his ex-wife. acosta's confirmation hearings open as a new lawsuit is raising questions about why he chose not to pursue federal charges against billionaire sex offender jeffrey epstein while acosta was the miami u.s. attorney. epstein was facing allegations he'd sexually abused more than 40 underaged girls, some as young as 13 years old. acosta's staff had recommended pursuing federal charges that could carry a life sentence. but acosta overruled his staff and instead cut a non-prosecution deal with epstein, who ended up serving an 13-month jail sentence. trump has also praised epstein in the past, saying -- "he's a lot of fun to be with. it is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as i do, and many of them are on the

younger side." trump is also the witness list in the florida lawsuit over acosta's handling of the case. the associated press is reporting president trump's former campaign chairman, paul manafort, secretly worked for a russian billionaire in order to advance the agenda of russian president vladimir putin across the former soviet republics, europe, and in the united states during the mid-2000's. the ap investigation reveals that in 2006, manafort signed a $10 million a year contract with putin's close ally, russian aluminum magnate oleg deripaska, to promote putin's interests. the ap report comes only days after fbi director james comey announced the fbi is investigating whether president trump's campaign collaborated with russia to sway the 2016 election. on monday, white house press secretary sean spicer sought to distance trump's campaign from manafort. >> even general flynn was a

volunteer of the campaign, and then obviously, there has been discussion of all manafort who played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time. >> he was the chairman -- >> can you stop interrupting other people's questions? jonathan, summit is asking a question. please call down. >> are you saying the president is aware of the contact -- >> nothing that has not been loosely discussed. amy: the "new york times" reports that longtime republican operative and trump associate roger stone is also under investigation as part of the agency's probe into russian interference in the 2016 election. meanwhile, the state department has announced secretary of state rex tillerson has proposed new dates for an april nato meeting he initially said he'd skip. his initial decision to skip the meeting had sparked concerns among european leaders, especially since tillerson plans to head to russia later in april. the supreme court ruled six to

two tuesday to limit some high-level officials to serve positions. it comes from the 2011 appointment for the national labor relations board. so to mayor and ginsburg dissented from the majority ruling, which rules a person cannot serve as acting head of federal agency while he or she is also waiting senate confirmation to fill the role permanently. the british based syrian observatory for human rights says a u.s.-led coalition airstrike has killed dozens of civilians, after it hit a school near the isis-held city of raqqa. both the observatory and local journalists say the school was being used to shelter displaced families. the u.s.-led coalition has been bombing raqqa for months. the pentagon has not confirmed the strike. however, the pentagon has announced a formal investigation into another recent u.s. airstrike, which killed at least 49 people in a rebel-held village in aleppo province. local journalists and monitoring

groups say the dead were civilians who had gathered at a mosque to pray, while the pentagon has claimed the strike hit an al-qaeda meeting. in other news in syria, rebels have launched an offensive on the government-held capital, damascus, seizing several government positions. the offensive signals the seven-year-old civil war is far from over. in somalia, at least five people have died after a car bomb exploded at a security checkpoint near the presidential palace in the capital mogadishu. 10 more people were wounded in the blast. meanwhile, radio mogadishu is reporting at least 26 people have starved to death over the last day and a half in the southern region of jubaland, amid a severe drought. the united nations is warning nearly 3 million people are at risk of famine in somalia. more than 6000 refugees seeking to reach europe were rescued in the mediterranean over the last few days as warming weather is leading more people to attempt the dangerous crossing. an estimated 500 refugees have already drowned in the

mediterranean this year. this is joel millman of the international organization for migration. >> arrivals in italy this year have already passed 20,000, which is twice the 2015 rate through three months of the year and considerably ahead of 2016's through three-month severe. we get to complete march and we already racing at a pace of arrivals that has exceeded anything we have seen before in the mediterranean. this is typical of spring, getting very busy, but not typical to have the numbers be so high this early in a corresponding deaths that go with it. amy: in india, tens of thousands of auto workers are protesting the recent convictions of 13 workers over the 2012 uprising at a maruti suzuki plant in a district outside new dehli. the 13 union members have been sentenced to life in prison for the death of a plant manager during the 2012 uprising. workers say the uprising began after a supervisor insulted one of the workers with caste-related slurs. the uprising occurred in the

midst of the workers' ongoing struggle to win an independent union at the plants of india's largest car maker. on saturday, 35,000 workers observed a one-hour strike in protest of the convictions. another mass protest has been called for tomorrow in the district. as many as 14,000 people took to the streets of brussels tuesday to protest austerity measures. the march included health care workers calling for better conditions. this is mental health care worker bernard decelle. >> honestly, we cannot take it anymore. we are experiencing burnout. they do not replace people when they get sick. we have to be available when a colleague is sick, and we don't get anything in return. amy: back in the united states, honduran president juan orlando hernandez was confronted by protesters when he arrived in washington, d.c. to meet with , lawmakers tuesday. the protesters chanted "asesino" -- the spanish word for murderer -- and held photographs of the murdered environmental activist

berta caceres. she is one of more than 120 environmental and human rights activists who have been murdered in honduras since the 2009 u.s.-backed military coup. dozens of lawmakers have signed on to co-sponsor the berta caceres human rights in honduras act, which seeks to withhold u.s. military aid to honduras until the honduran government addresses human rights violations by its police and security forces. the white house is facing questions and criticism after photos surfaced showing the head of an anti-muslim hate group visiting the white house tuesday. brigitte gabriel is the head of act for america, which the southern poverty law center says is the nation's largest grassroots anti-muslim group, whose mission is to "advance anti-muslim legislation at the local and federal level while flooding the american public with wild hate speech demonizing muslims." in february, gabriel also posted a photo of herself posing with president trump at mar-a-lago.

and vigils were held across ireland tuesday to mourn the death of politician and former ira leader martin mcguinness. mcguinness served as the commander of the irish republican army during northern ireland's struggle for independence. he later served as the chief negotiator for sinn fein, the ira's political arm, and helped broker the 1998 peace deal known as the good friday agreement. this is sinn fein president gerry adams. >> margin was, as will note very passionate irish republican. he believed in our people. people should be free. he believed in reconciliation. he worked very, very hard at all of that. -- so we are very, very sad that we lost him overnight. amy: martin mcguinness died

tuesday at the age of 66. and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we turn now to the confirmation hearings of supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. on tuesday, gorsuch faced over 10 hours of questioning by members of the senate judiciary committee. gorsuch was tapped by president trump to fill the seat left vacant by antonin scalia is death over a year ago. president obama nominated merrick portland replace scalia nearly a year ago, but republicans refused to even hold hearings during garland would tip the ideological balance of the court to the left. one of the most riveting moments in the gorsuch hearing occurred when minnesota senator our franken -- al franken questioned gorsuch about his ruling in a case involving a truck driver who got fired after he disobeyed a supervisor and abandoned his trailer that he was driving because he was on the verge of freezing to death. the truck driver couldn't drive

off with the trailer because the trailer's brakes had frozen. in the case, judge gorsuch cast the sole dissent ruling in favor of the trucking company against the trucker. in a moment, we will hear franken questioning gorsuch about the case. but first, i want to turn to the truck driver himself, alphonse maddin. he spoke in washington a few days ago at an event organized by senate democrats. >> in january 2009, i was working as a commercial truck driver for transam trucking incorporated of olathe, kansas. i was hauling a load of meat through the state of illinois. after stuffing to resolve the discrepancy of the location refuel, the brakes on the trailer froze. i contacted my employer and they arranged for a repair unit to come to my location. i expected help would arrive

within an hour. i woke three hours later to discover that i could not feel my feet, my skin was burning and cracking, my speech was slurred, and i was having trouble breathing. the temperature that night was roughly 27 degrees fahrenheit below zero. the heater in the cabin was not producing heat and the temperature gauge in the truck was reading minus seven degrees below zero. after forming my employer of my physical condition, they responded by telling me to simply hang in there. as i sat there physically suffering in the cold, i started having thoughts that i was going to die. my physical condition was fading rapidly. i decided to try to attach the trailer from the truck and drive to safety. when i stepped out of the truck, i was concerned that i may fall because i was on the verge of passing out.

i feared that if i fail, i would not have the strength to stand up and would die. i walked to the back of the trailer to place a lock on the cargo doors. the distance that i walked to the back of the trailer seemed like an attorney as my feet absolutely had no feeling at all. i eventually was able to detach the tractor from the trailer. before i left, i called my employer to notify them that i had decided to head to shelter. and they ordered me to either drag the trailer or stay put. clearly, the, cargo was more important in my life. my employer fired me for disobeying their orders. i would like to make it clear detached the i tractor from the trailer, i returned and i completed my job

and i was still fired. i disputed my termination from transam chunky and ultimate -- trucking and uimately won. this was a seven year battle. 70 for judges heard my case. one of those judges filed against me. that judge was neil gorsuch. amy: that was alphonse maddin, the truck driver in case involved supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. at tuesday's hearing, senator al franken questioned gorsuch about his dissent in the case. >> there are two safety issues here. one, the possibility of freezing to death or driving with that rig in a very committed very dangerous way. which would you have done now go >> oh, senator, i don't know what i would've done in issues and i don't blame him at all a moment for what he did do.

i empathize with them entirely. >> we been talking about this case. you haven't decided what you would have done? you haven't thought about what you would done in the case? >> i thought a lot about it. i totally but dies -- >> please answer the questions. trucks i was not in the man's shoes, but i understand -- >> i would've done exactly what he did. i think everybody would have done exactly what he did. this companyto say is in his rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. that is absurd. now i had a career in identifying absurdity. [laughter]

and i know it when i see it. know, itkes me, you makes me question your judgment. amy: that a senator franken questioning judge gorsuch. we're joined by kristen clarke president and executive director , of the lawyers' committee for civil rights under law. she will be testifying before the senate judiciary committee on thursday. elliot mincberg is a senior fellow at people for the american way. kristen, let's begin with you. can you talk about the significance of this case, judge gorsuch, the sole dissenter siding with the company that this man should have remained in subfreezing weather in this broken down truck, even if it meant he would die? >> well, it is not just this one case.

at the lawyers committee for civil rights under law, what we historically do is review the full record of the nominees that are put forth for the supreme court. and we did that with judge gorsuch. we look at many of the cases that he authored or joined the opinion in during his tenure on the 10th circuit. and what we found was a pattern that suggests he is not someone who believes that victims should be using the courtroom as a place to vindicate their civil rights. he is a very narrow view of civil rights. this was a pattern that emerged for us as we evaluated the many cases that were issued were authored by judge gorsuch. this pattern especially pronounced in the criminal justice context. when we looked at cases involving police officers, for example, judge gorsuch is someone who has a very line order outlook. he is someone who is very pro-law enforcement.

there is one case that stands out from his record in which an officer sought quality that's qualified immunity after being sued in wrongful death matter after shooting a victim in the head at close range with a taser. the victim died. and there judge gorsuch determined the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. there were a number of cases like this. in a separate criminal justice matter, judge gorsuch throughout these hearings, has gone to great links to say he looks at people individually. but in some of the criminal justice cases, he talked about who we a general group should not question or second-guess their judgment. he is somebody who is bringing to bear a very pro-law enforcement perspective. i think that is important because victims in the trucking

case, victims in criminal justice cases, often are, you know, going to the courts as a foreign of last resort -- for um as last resort. , thislliot mincberg particular case is stunning. senator franken spent a lot of time on this, asking judge gorsuch would he want to be on the road of a trucker who was experiencing hypothermia, who was not able to drive this road correctly -- not only would he be endangering himself, the trucker, but other people on the road. and you talk more about this case? are exactly right. it is interesting and the excerpt you played, the judge continued to try to claim that he has empathy for this truck

driver. that when the pedal hit the metal, so to speak, he did precisely the opposite. he did what he does in so many cases, sided with the corporation which claimed under the law that it had the ability to insist that that truck driver either drive the truck with the trailer attached or stay right where he is, a senator flake and pointed out. you do one of those, would likely have been his death. in the majority in that case and in all of the other judges that looked at it to massage very clearly that the labor department was correct and that there was no good justification for what the employer had done. gorsuch disagreed, as he so often does, in cases involving corporations. where he very consistently tense to favor the corporation over the individual employee, consumer, whatever the case may

be. in fact, we found out of 11 dissents that he wrote regarding corporations, 10 of them, all that one, were in favor of the corporation. the only exception was a case where a local community when it to regulate an adult bookstore. amy: what happened in that case? >> he went along with the local community and what against the corporation. that was the only dissent in which he did that. he even in those cases that tried to talk about under usually republican questioning where he favored employees -- which he did occasionally -- most always, they tended to be against a municipal corporation. when it is a corporation, a private corporation involved, the kind of corporation he represented in private practice, he very, very consistently votes for the corporation, not the little guy. and that is not what we want on the supreme court. amy: elliot mincberg and kristen clarke, we're going to go to

break in a come back to look more at judge gorsuch's record. stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. supreme court nominee neil gorsuch is back on capitol hill for a second of questioning before the senate judiciary committee. gorsuch is tapped by president trump. president obama nominated merrick garland to replace antonin scalia at nearly a year ago but republicans refused to even hold hearings, fearing garland would to get a logical balance. during tuesday's hearing, neil gorsuch faced russians about his views on the supreme court citizens united ruling in the $10 million dark money campaign that is supporting his

nomination. this is democratic senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island. >> how would you describe any differences that you may have in judicial philosophy with chief judge garland? >> i would leave that for others to characterize. i don't like when people characterize me, and i would not prefer to characterize him. he can characterize himself. >> what is interesting is this huge difference between you that i don't understand. the dark money group that is spending money on your elections spent at least $7 million andnst him getting hearing a confirmation here, indeed, produced that result by spending now we haveand then $10 million going the other way -- that is a $17 million delta. and for the life of me, i'm trying to figure out what they see in you that makes that $17 million delta worth their

spending. do you have any answer to that? >> you would have to ask them. >> i can't, because i don't know who they are. it is just a front group. amy: senator sheldon whitehouse went on to ask about the man who has close ties to judge gorsuch. >> is a question were to come up court,ng recusal on the thewould we know that partiality question in a recusal matter had been adequately addressed if we did not know who was spending all of this money to get you confirmed? it could be one individual. hypothetically, it could be your friend. we don't know because it is dark money will stop is it any cause

of concern to you that your a $10tion is the focus of million political spending effort and we don't know who is behind it? >> there's a lot of other confirmation process today that i regret. amy: still with us is kristen clarke president and executive , director of the lawyers' committee for civil rights under law. she will testify before the senate judiciary committee on thursday. and elliot mincberg is a senior fellow at people for the american way. elliot mincberg, what about this issue of dark money? it also goes to issues, for example, of citizens united. it even the campaign, in my shock people to know, -- it might shock you to know what is happening, $10 million around judge gorsuch. >> think senator whitehouse was asking those questions, particularly to highlight the significance of citizens united. and a part of gorsuch's refusal

to state the way he thinks about the decision just as he refused to state what he thinks about virtually any other decision by the supreme court. and what i think the main point is is that as a result of citizens united, we don't know anything at all about who has made these contributions, who has made these's miniatures, more portly, because the supreme court has ruled that we cannot find out and that congressional attempts at action to do that are unconstitutional. showllustrations perfectly what is so dangerous about the citizens united decision, judge gorsuch basically just shrugged his shoulders and said, "that's not my problem. that's not my concern." that is not what we want on the united states of record. amy: kristen clarke, what is the lilly ledbetter fair pay act and what is, do you know, judge

gorsuch's views on it? >> this is one of the most important federal laws that was passed during president obama's tenure -- and fact, it was the very first federal law he signed in 2009. it stands very simply for the principle of equal pay free cool work -- for equal work. in 2000, shortly after the law went into effect, there is a case that came before judge gorsuch, allman versus unified school district. and here we saw evidence yet again of judge gorsuch really narrowly interpreting civil mosts laws in truly the narrow way possible. in that case, you had a group of employees who brought this cremation claims. they were transferred and a mode to jobs that paid less -- demoted to jobs that pay less. it appeared to violate the fair

pay act. mr. gore should -- mr. gorsuch rather long narrowly and dismissed the claims, affirmed following outside the scope of the text. in his view, the lilly ledbetter fair pay act only made unlawful discriminatory compensation claims. so this transfer into motion of employees to a job that paid less fell beyond the scope of the law. it is emblematic of judge gorsuch's views to civil rights generally. he is not some who brings a broad view of civil rights. he is not someone who appears to understand the scope of discrimination that we continue to wrestle with in our country today. and so one of my hopes is that we see the senate really probe deeply into judge gorsuch's view on the enforcement powers of

commerce under the 14th and 15th amendment, for example. we need a justice on the supreme court who understands the reality that we face today and that is one in which discrimination, sadly, is alive and well. amy: i want to turn to illinois democratic senator dick durbin questioning judge gorsuch about lgbtq writes. >> and what about lgbtq individuals? them?ator, what about >> the point i made, they are people. >> of course. >> which said earlier, you have a record of speaking out, standing up for those minorities you believe or not being treated fairly. can you point to statements or cases you have ruled on relative to that? >> i've tried to treat each case and each person as a person, not a "this kind of person" or "that kind of person." a person. equal justice under law is a

radical promise. >> does that refer to sexual orientation as well? >> the supreme court of the united states has held that single-sex marriage is protected by the constitution. amy: kristen clarke, your response to his answer to dick durbin? >> you know, there is a 2005 article that judge gorsuch wrote in the national review called "liberals and lawsuits." in that article, judge gorsuch claims american liberals have become obsessed with using the courtrooms as a place to vindicate their rights they should be looking to elected officials. and i find that view deeply problematic. throughout our nation's history when we look at the role of the supreme court, this has been the place where we have seen rulings that have helped to transform our nation and breathe life into the constitutions text.

this is the place where the battle against school desegregation played out. this is the place where battle over interracial marriage and whether it is legal has played out. this is the place where marriage battle was fought and won. it is not clear to me that judge gorsuch appreciates the centrality of the supreme court as a forum of last resort for victims of discrimination in our country. responseudge gorsuch's during that exchange yesterday. i am sure he appreciates that there will be cases that seek to chip away at the marriage equality ruling that came down from the supreme court. and i think the senate should continue to press judge gorsuch to truly understand whether he theully prepared to uphold

presidents that have been set forth by the supreme court and some of these fragile areas. amy: the voting rights? >> voting rights is another one of those core areas. the perhaps most devastating ruling issued by the supreme court in the last decade was the shelby county alabama v holder case, which got a corporate vision, the heart of the voting rights act, the preclearance provision. we need to make sure that judge gorsuch is prepared to uphold what is left of the voting rights act. we need to understand whether judge gorsuch has a full appreciation for the fact that voting discrimination is alive and well across our country, and that the act, what remains of it, is our primary tool for fighting back against that discrimination. i cited that 2005 article, which i think is troubling, and he

tried to distance himself from some of the statements in the article during the hearing yesterday, but he claims elected officials were discreet -- are where victims should turn to when they have a problem or encounter discrimination. well, that does not work if voting discrimination remains unchallenged. so it is my hope that as we move forward that the senate will probe deeply to solicit judge nation's views on our most important federal civil rights law, the voting rights act. amy: on tuesday, senate minority leader chuck schumer called on the senate to delay a vote on gorsuch. for as long as the fbi is investigating the trump campaign. shoe were bet if the on the other foot and a democratic president was under investigation by the fbi, the republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a supreme court seat in such circumstances. after all, they stopped

president who wasn't under investigation from filling a seat with nearly a year left in his presidency. it is unseemly to be moving forward so fast on confirming a supreme court justice with a lifetime appointment while this big gray cloud of an fbi investigation hangs over the presidency. amy: elliot mincberg, what about this, to delay this whole thing while there is an fbi investigation? >> i think senator schumer has a very good point. the rush the republicans are pushing to get gorsuch on the supreme court, they want to get him on by early april, which would be a must record time, is quite unseemly under these circumstances. this is senator schumer point, that we need to take our time to make sure that we not only thoroughly explore judge gorsuch's record, but these other concerns.

to add to one small point is made by kristin, in that same 2005 article, judge gorsuch specifically singled out for criticism liberals, as he put it, who were trying to produce equal marriage rights through litigation. and that, of course, is exactly what happened. they very negative attitude by him toward that and other issues is extremely disturbing. frankly, two days of questioning is less than the number that, for example, judge forgot, who was questioned for several days. why is there any to do this so quickly, particularly with this cloud that unfortunately hangs over this presidency? amy: can you quickly address gorsuch backing the state of utah in his decision to defund planned parenthood last year? planned parenthood very much and the crosshairs. if this vote takes? around health care act? >> i'm sir, i missed part of your question.

amy: if you could talk about gorsuch tacking the state of utah in his decision to defund planned parenthood last year? >> absolutely. we learned an important thing about it. in the planned parenthood case, the judges -- three judges on the court issued a preliminary injunction against the governor who had cut off funding for planned parenthood of utah, which does not itself do abortions. the judges found that he had done this as retaliation because of their promotion of abortion rights will stop he claimed it was because he was upset about what turned out to be the false videos of other planned parenthood affiliates dealing with sale of fetal tissue. judge gorsuch, we learned yesterday, was not satisfied with that result. he was not on the panel. even though the parties did not want to take the case any further, he insisted on pulling all of the judges on the circuit

to try to get that case reheard. and he argued in his dissent from the denial of rehearing, because most judges thought there was no good reason to rehearing, that we needed to give deference to the governor of utah, to his views about what he was doing it. exactly the same argument the trump administration is making right today on trying to uphold its immigration ban. listen to our order that we are doing it for security, not our previous statements that said we were doing it because we are anti-muslim, which several courts have found, violates the constitution. that kind of deference to a high executive official is exactly what judge gorsuch has shown, it's kristin points out, even with respect to police officers. and we cannot afford that lack of independence, particularly under president trump. amy: kristen clarke, you're going to

be testifying tomorrow. what are your thoughts on what the senator schumer said about this vote should be put off while trump and the trump campaign are under investigation by the fbi and considering what happened to merrick garland? >> so, you know, the hearing is happening inside the four walls of that senate room, but the reality is, everything that is happening in the outside world. there have been people who have been talked about, the andrience of mayor garland the political obstruction that prevented his nomination from being heard. there are looming questions about russia's influence on the november election. and there are also deep concerns about the uptick in hate crimes that we are seeing rise in xenophobia. all of this looms over this incredibly important nomination. i think it makes it clear the stakes are high.

the american public deserves a justice on the supreme court who will be fair and impartial and truly committed to the principle of equal justice under law, and who will bring some sensitivity to the reality of ongoing discrimination and problems that truly threaten our democracy. we are on the verge of a constitutional crisis. and a justice on the court who will bring order and resolve the great controversies that come before the court in the years ahead is critical. it is my hope the senate continues to take the task of scouring judge gorsuch's record very, very carefully. the stakes could not be higher. amy: there are some who say the democratic senators should simply walk out and not participate. what are your thoughts on that? a you know, i represent nonpartisan civil rights organization, so the political actions that elected officials

might take are not something that i can comment on. but what i do agree is that the president, president obama last year, carried out his constitutional job of putting forth a nominee who did not get a hearing and a vote. in some respects, it is hard to ignore the fact we should not be in this position today. we should have a nine-member supreme court that was able to carry out its work properly over the past year. so that is something that is looming. nonetheless, here we are. judge gorsuch's nomination is what is on the table. it is my hope that today, tomorrow, and in the days ahead we look very carefully to figure out whether judge gorsuch is the proper person to fill the vacant seat on the court. amy: kristen clarke, thank you for being with us, as well as elliot mincberg. when we come back, two men, a

lawyer and a former police chief, are stopped at the airport, detained and questioned. why? stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we turn now to what seems to be growing chorus of u.s. citizens sharing accounts of having been detained at airports across the country since the start of the trump administration. boston-based civil rights attorney ivan espinoza-madrigal says he was returning home on march 12 from a vacation in portugal when he was detained at boston's logan airport. in an article in the huffington post, espinoza-madrigal, who was born in costa rica, explains that he has lived in the u.s. for three decades and became a citizen 20 years ago in 1996. he writes -- "it is disempowering and dehumanizing to have government officials question my citizenship and passport. my citizenship is not only a

legal status; it is deeply rooted in my identity. if my personal experience at logan is any indication, airport inspections are now targeting not only muslims, but other minorities -- including u.s. citizens -- for extreme vetting." a day later, the former police chief chief of greenville, north carolina says he was detained , for over an hour by customs and border protection agents when he was flying into new york city's jfk airport after returning from visiting his mother in paris. in a facebook post, he wrote that he was a u.s. citizen and had worked in law enforcement in the u.s. for nearly 30 years. hassan aden wrote that after his detention -- "this country now feels cold, unwelcoming, and in the beginning stages of a country that is isolating itself from the rest of the world and its own people in an unprecedented fashion." espinoza-madrigal and aden join us, along with many other citizens, including a u.s. olympic medalist, a nasa

scientist, and the son of a boxing legend who have all been detained at airports across the country since the start of the trump administration. for more we're joined by both , ivan espinoza-madrigal and hassan aden. hassan aden, let's begin with you. you're the former police chief of greenville, north carolina. talk about what happened you at jfk. weekend in spent the paris celebrating my mom's 80th birthday. unitedurned back to the states. i was looking forward to seeing my family and getting back to work and doing my thing. thing was business as usual. i got off my flight, went through the automated passport check, got my customs sheet printed out. i walked up and and a my passport desiccated my passport to a cbp agent who barely looked up at me.

he scanned my passport, looked at me, asked me if i was traveling alone. i responded "yes" and then he stood up and said, let's take a walk. i first read flag that something the same as always. i travel frequently. i travel internationally. i travel nationally weekly multiple times. i have never, ever been stopped by cbp. not to say that i don't support and really appreciate the mission of cbp -- they have a difficult job with lots of complexities. but the detention is the piece that i question. and the links of the detention. i was taken back to a room that was a makeshift office that appear to be some sort of a storage room. half,e next hour and a they helped my passport. i questioned whether i was being

detained. the original officer that took me back to her said, "no, this is not a detention." of differentts arguments about that. i was clearly not free to leave. eventually, i was released. it took about 90 minutes. andook one very respectful helpful customs agent or -- yeah, agent, that she started her shift and took an interest in my case because i imagine what she saw was a lot of foreign nationals being brought in and released in about five minutes after their passports were vted. and i was just sitting there. for about 90 minutes. finally, she helped me get my, whatever the vetting was, done, and i was on my way. the really, the issue for me and is the policies of cbp something has changed. as i have stated, i travel

internationally frequently. and it has always been a welcoming home, something i look toward when i get off my flight. customs agents have always been polite, "welcome back to the united states." this was the first time i have traveled internationally in 2017. amy: they took your phone? >> no. amy: you had your phone in your possession at all times? >> i had my phone in my possession at all times. however, i was restricted from using it. that were two signs clear what they wanted you to do. one, remain seated at all times. devices andmobile telephones strict the prohibited. another sign i was being detained. amy: i want to bring in ivan espinoza-madrigal. talk about your own experience. >> thank you, amy. my experience was somewhat similar. i was returning home from a vacation in portugal.

i went through the passport control line, like usual, and the difference here is that instead of asking me "where were you? are you bringing any fruit investable's?" what the officer did is he looked at me very suspiciously as if i had done something wrong. took my passport, left the kiosk and proceeded to confer with a ,ouple of other cbp officers returned, asked me questions like, where did you get this passport? who gave you this passport? where does this passport come from? clearly indicating the authenticity of my passport was at issue, that there was some notion that my passport may be .ake or invalid in some fashion and questioning my citizenship

and the fact i have this u.s. passport. at that point, the passport was scanned through the cbp system, clearly identifying me and that the passport was issued by the u.s. passport agency in new york. instead of releasing me at that time, what the officer did was to escalate the matter by calling over another cbp officer to escort me to a separate security room where my vetting continued. and where i was asked to produce additional proof of identity so they could confirm who i was. this is the first time i traveled since the inauguration, and it was the first time ever that i had been subjected to this type of additional scrutiny and vetting. the last time i traveled was in january right before the inauguration. i came into the country perfectly fine, like any other u.s. citizen. presidentgroup sued

trump this year on behalf of of the cities of lawrence and chelsea in massachusetts over the president's executive order defining sanctuary cities? >> that's right. we sued on february 8. no organization was the country to sue on behalf of sanctuary communities. we represent two heavily immigrant towns in massachusetts that are being threatened by the trump administration for defunding based under immigrant-friendly policies. the lawsuit is the only one in the east coast at this time. this litigation was very important because we need to protect all families and children in our communities. important for my organization to be out there right now at a time of significant federal uncertainty protecting families, and to be treated as suspect at the airport was incredibly, not just

humiliating, but -- when my job is to protect immigrant families. amy: last month, white house press secretary sean spicer said that the president wanted to "take the shackles off" of the nation's immigration agents. >> the president needed to give guidance, especially after what they went through in the last of administration, that i say james and cbp had to figure out each individual whether or not they fit in a particular category and they could adjudicate that case. the president wanted to take the shackles of individuals in these agencies and say, you have a mission, there are laws that need to be followed, he should do and follow the law. , your thoughtsn on what he is saying? you are law enforcement. do you see this as an shackling of law enforcement? >> they took the shackles off cbp and place them on others for your citizens and others that are subjected to this kind of conduct now. it is humiliating, as ivan

stated. it is a position of -- it makes you extremely vulnerable and you have no idea what is happening to you at the time it is happening. the reason why i really wanted to bring this up and very publicly was because there are so many people that are voiceless. ivan and i both have voices and platform and i think it is our responsibility to shed light on this problem. , do ivan espinoza-madrigal you think your targeted because of the lawsuit? >> i'm not sure. i don't know what they were thinking. but what i know is one of the greatest strengths of this country is that we do not have classes of citizenship. all citizens have the same rights and privileges. and that was certainly not my experience at the airport. so for whatever reason it was, whether i was targeted for my civil rights advocacy or taste on the color of my skin and my

identity, it is unconstitutional and un-american. amy: hassan aden, you're familiar with databases that law enforcement use, as a former police chief. what database do you think you are in? >> i'm not sure. i believe -- i was never told that by cbp -- but i believe it -- i was told my name was used as an alias and that some database flagged it. i believe it is something to do with a terrorist watchlist or fusion center. but what i do know is one of three things is going on with this database. one, either the database -- on amy: we have five seconds. >> there's a problem with the database and the policies behind it. it should not take 90 minutes to clear someone holding the u.s. passport. and ivanan aden espinoza-madrigal detained at an

eric in a ports. a

>> i am lidia bastianich, and teaching you about italian food has always been my passion. i want to always make it prettier and better and tastier, but this doesn't need a single thing. now it's time to learn the basics of the italian kitchen. so join me and master all things italian. tutti a tavola a mangiare! >> at cento fine foods, we're dedicated to preserving the culinary heritage of authentic italian foods by offering over 100 specialty italian products for the american kitchen. cento -- trust your family with our family. >> grana padano, made with passion for almost 1,000 years, helps bring authentic flavor to meals. grana padano -- italian excellence. >> when talking about a nice, juicy steak, grilling comes to mind, right? for me, it's all about searing, so come and sear with me today.