. good evening from los angeles. i'm tavis smiley. less than a month in office and president trump faces scores of lawsuits and allegations of abuse of power and named a u.s. supreme court nominee neil gorsuch raising questions. first conversation with legal scholar lisa murray and adam wakeman. then we pivot to conversation with comedian about her grammy nominated comedy album. all of that in just a moment. ♪

and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. ♪ >> unpack these roller coaster actions by the trump administration in his first few weeks that face constitutional challenges now and look at legal leanings of this u.s. supreme

court nominee neil gorsuch. this has been so -- >> days ago. >> i don't know how to keep up with all that happened legally over the last few days. let me start with the nomination. >> i said it was going to be gorsuch. >> it wasn't a huge surprise. he was on the list of people who he was considering. we know that list was prepared for donald trump by the federal society and other conservative organizations. they weren't going to let him vary from that list too easily. >> as i recall we last met you did call this and you were a bit concerned about what this might mean. >> i was concerned. i think this is a very

confirmable candidate. i think that is the point. neil gorsuch is exactly the kind of person that the american people would expect to be on the supreme court. but, again, they are sort of framing him as a kind of this is someone everyone can accept. that suggests maybe he is a kind of mainstream candidate like someone from all parts of political spectrum can get on board with. he has all credentuals that one might recognize but he is far more conservative than even the justice he would be replacing, antonin scalia. i think he is very much in keeping with scalia on social issues like abortion, reproductive rights. i think he is further to the right of scalia on things like administrative authority and deference from executive branch to administrative state. that is an issue that most americans don't know about that actually impacts our lives on a regular basis.

more people have interaction at the principle means of government. a shift in the way the administrative state interacts could be huge. that is something he says in his earlier rulings. he doesn't believe the administrative state should be in charge of interpreting statutes that are ambiguous that they are charged with executing. >> and by confirmable do i take your use to mean because he hadn't been confirmed before? because republicans have the votes? because trump is giving him permission to go nuclear if they need to? >> he was confirmed unanimously to the 10th circuit. he had impeccable credentuals. he is supposed to be a really nice person. this is the kind of nominee that everyone can get behind as long as you don't go into the record more deeply. if you do i think you find

someone perhaps more to the right than you might expect. that is what i was concerned about was the idea if this is a candidate we can all get behind it means the mainstream has shifted from the middle to something much more to the right. >> i think that's right. his positions on issues like reproductive rights, gun rights all very, very conservative. i think if there is one hopeful aspect of the nomination is he is not going to be a lap dog for trump or vote in the way that trump wants. i think he has a very robust view of the power of the supreme court and will be eager to exercise the power to curtail donald trump and the trump administration. >> i'm not sure i can ask either of you without compromising, ask you how the democrats ought to handle this. we would love to bite into that apple and respond to how they should. how do you think they will? i ask that knowing that this is

just the first bite of the apple. there will be another. and if you consider to my mind that this guy is basically replacing scalia you had a conservative seat even though the seat may have been stolen. you replace him. you didn't gain anything nor lose anything. the next one is where the real fight comes down. i'm asking how you think democrats will approach this in light of the fact that this is not the only fight we are going to have to have about the supreme court. >> i don't know. one thing i think is clear that the democrats are not going to have a completely well thought out strategy. everything that seems to be happening from the democratic party seems to be cobbled together. i think thinking there will be unified and well thought out strategy might be too much.

i think they are trying to figure out what they are going to do and try to think two steps ahead. that is hard because this is a much more erratic administration than i think we have seen in a long time. i think trying to figure out what comes next is going to be difficult for the democrats to do. there are lots of consideration about the next nominee whether or not this is simply something that returns us to the february 12, 2016 status quo. maybe. if you think about this is a seat that should have been filled and probably would have been filled by a more moderate or more progressive pick i think it is safe to say this is a seat that was never for grabs. this is a seat that would have gone to merit garland or if president obama picked someone else a more progressive. this is a seat that is lost. >> i think putting obama and the word progressive in the same sentence troubles. he has never done anything

progressive. >> well, i think in some ways we should look at baseline as scalia. scalia was 78 years old. he wasn't going to be voting for another 38 years. he had that time in that seat. republicans don't have right to that seat. they played hard ball politics. i think democrats are likely to play hard ball politics back in rejection of either neil gorsuch or just a statement that they don't want those kinds of old politics. >> i have another conversation to get political about this. i want you to talk about the legal aspects of this. but trump is basically getting mitch mcconnell the authority to go nuclear. once you do that you change the rules forever for how this game is going to be played. what is your sense of how dangerous it would be to go nuclear just to get this guy through? >> i think the democrats are thinking about what it means to

go nuclear on the lower court. i said this before. the main action is not just the supreme court but all of the lower court seats that haven't been filled under obama. now those are subject to majority votes. those are big seats where most of the action is happening. look what is happening with the immigration ban. it's not -- we can't just think about the supreme court. i think the democrats may wish that they hadn't gone nuclear back then. i think to go nuclear on the supreme court really is to sort of alter the rules and complete game changer. i think that is the question. i think the republicans are willing to go nuclear. it's not a question of if but a question of when. so the real issue is when do you want to join this battle? is it now or is it two seats from now? >> i'm with you. i think if you are willing to play hard ball in such a way that you don't give a hearing to a nominee then going nuclear may

change the rules but if you get what you want and you are in charge and setting the rules what difference does it make? >> one of the big difficulties for democrats is they believe in traditions in washington, things like the filibuster and give someone a hearing and if they are qualified you defer to the president. republicans have sort of thrown those traditions out. a lot of democrats are in the uncomfortable position of playing just the same game that the republicans are playing at the same time if you believe in those traditions you have to ask on those traditions to keep them alive otherwise they will disappear. >> that is why i was on meet the press on sunday and he came up and you have to fight fires whether you win them or lose them. this is the thing where you dry a line in the sand and you fight on this. if the only way is to go nuclear then they end up doing this of their own doing and of their own

undoing. this is something where you have to draw a line in the sand. since you were here last we had a roller coaster up and down on this muslim ban. from two legal scholars what do you make of where we are? >> we are headed to the supreme court. that's where we are going. this ban was heard in seattle district court. the judge ruled to issue a preliminary injunction temporarily staying enforcement of the ban. the president didn't have much to say about the lower court judge. >> so-called judge. >> now it is headed to a panel and from there maybe -- all of the judges but more likely to the supreme court which, of course, is without one member. >> it is important to recognize what we are talking about here is only a restraining order and injunction that would stop the travel ban from going into

effect pending resolution of the merits. the courts had not ruled on the merits of the lawsuits. they are arguing on whether they should have a status quo with no travel ban or with a travel ban. >> there is nothing unusual or wrong with a president disagreeing on a decision. i am wondering whether or not you are troubled by the language, the way you call a so-called judge. that's -- it's trump's way but i wonder what long term damage is of that kind of ugliness between the executive branch and the judicial branch. >> i think all americans should be concerned about rhetoric like this. it's not just about liberal or conservative. the judishary is the last line of -- you are undermining the

legitimacy of the judiciary. when we were talking about what trump has done vis-a-vis the media. the idea that you start with the baseline that the media cannot be trusted that is the same thing happening. we cannot trust the judiciary. to call a sitting judge a so-called judge is to undermine not just that judge but the judiciary as a whole. >> do you agree? >> absolutely. that is what we are seeing from trump is delegitimize the news. he had a tweet saying any poll that shows i'm not winning is a fake poll. i think we are seeing a delegitimization of so many institutions. he can call judges so-called all he wants.

courts are not going to back down because donald trump has a lot of bluster. maybe members of congress will back down. >> we all live basically in a sanctuary city. what do you make of his threat to not fund these cities? >> i think it will be difficult for him to do that. however, i think some of those policies would be within congress's power to condition funds on. as long as there is a condition that he puts on those moneys related to underlying purposes of the program and he can do that the question is what are the moneys he is going to lend. >> i come back to this is about delegitimization. san francisco is dissenting so i will with hold federal funding. we have seen presidents do that. look into this.

why san francisco rsh why the sanctuary cities? because they are resisting. they don't agree. so the only opportunity to not have a dialogue which would happen in a democratic process but to say we will silence you by cutting off funding. the rhetoric is different. all of this is different. that is something we all should be concerned about. this is about fundamental undermining. >> i asked earlier this year when you were on the program, we will see a lot of you with all of these cases coming before the courts. i asked earlier this year whether or not we thought this was going to be the most litigious presidency in history. the answer already is yes. there were like 50 lawsuits already that he is named in. >> the most of any president at this point in his term. >> we will see more of you guys. >> thank you. up next, comedian and grammy

nominee margaret cho. stay with us. pleased to welcome comedian margaret to the program. fourth career nomination. i'm pleased to welcome her to the program. good to see you. >> thank you. >> my pleasure. >> what makes for a great comedy album? how is that different from a great standup evening? >> i think it is about capturing what it is about that artist that makes them funny or something that like i don't know maybe stands out. this album is actually a music album. it is comedy music. comedy music generally does better than standup comedy in this category because there is more effort put in.

weird al, he always wins it or flight of the con cords, they always win it. this year it's me. >> how do i get inside your process? how do you go about composing a comedy music album? >> you know comedy just actually are a lot like songs. they are specifically worded to get something across, an idea across. so setting them to music is actually very natural. i love composing music. i love playing music. for me it is a great hobby but now it has become part of my business. >> when did the music part happen? >> i think about ten years ago i realized i wanted to start recording music y. had been playing and singing for a while. i thought i would like to record some of this and have fun. it is sort of like when eddie murphy did my girl wants to

party all the time. it is an incredible track. this is like a departure in the same way that like my girl likes to party all the time. >> i get the sense that eddie loves music and sees himself with an ability to sing as opposed to like weird al doing it for the fun of it, the joke in it. where are you at? >> i know that i can sing. i know that i can compose good music and i know i'm a good musician overall. i want to showcase that as i think weird al is actually a genius composure. different characters and good impressions of the artist that he is parodying. i want to come out of that as it is a comedy record and it is a

music record. >> what makes you uniquely different to my ear is that your subject matter is so much more diverse, so much more broad than whatever other persons in this category tend to do. is that by design? is that deliberate? >> yes because music is deeply personal as are the issues brought up in this record whether it's sexual abuse, all of this stuff that is so diverse but to me very important to cover musically and with comedy. >> how do you do that and make it funny and not do it and make it sort of preachy? >> i think the sincerity that there is an honesty and candor that maybe cuts through in the song writing. i always try to get close to the bonus comedian. i try to cut as deeply as i can

but at the same time still remaining -- you have to be just right. sometimes you overshoot the mark. i make a lot of mistakes. >> why is it important for you that every comedian has his or way of doing it. why is it so close for you to cut as close to the bone? why are you so intend on cutting as close to the bone as you can? >> i think that's the way that you can really make a difference. if you sort of come out this very fearlessly especially with that comedy and music, if you can come at it with a very you're not afraid of anybody or anything that's -- that's actually bernie mack. i'm not afraid. that's all he did. he would just say i'm not afraid. and then people would be so

brought in because you know that's like often comedy is looked at as the most terrified profession. what is so different between you and bernie is that bernie is a male. bernie is an african-american. there aren't many african-american males who have done well in the comedy genre. you were bullied as a child. i'm trying to figure out how you end up being an asian-american woman bullied as a child and you come out as a fearless comedian. how do you manage all of that? >> well, you know, when you're bullied like for me when i was on stage it was the one place i was safe. to me that actually like, the place that people feared being was a place where i felt totally comfortable. and so feeling that safety within performing and you had

like witnesses if anything went wrong. i felt very protected by an audience and protected in that role. so i feel like that is what it was. and it took a long time for other asian american women to get to this place where i am right now currently. alley wong who is tremendously inspiring to me. i saw her at -- she had a great netflix special called baby cobra. it was the first time i had seen another asian american woman doing standup comedy in that capacity. it was so exciting. i feel like it has taken asian american women a while to get there. >> you had a very popular critically acclaimed tv show back in the day. what did you learn from that

experience? on television you start to see strides being made. what did you learn from that experience? >> right now i'm doing a show, creating a show -- it was with amazon and now with tnt. it's called "highland". it's another asian american family and they are navigating the big marijuana boom. i have seen a lot of like korean americans who get frustrated by being in the -- they go into medical marijuana. doing television a long time ago "all american girl" was 1994. this was very new, very different. never seen an asian american family on tv before. it was really hard to get the

sort of message across that this wasn't a family like third rock from the sun. there was the feeling like we were real aliens. so, you know, it was a very difficult show to do. now what is great is that show like "fresh off the boat," "dr. ken." it's very exciting. we are seeing a lot more diversity. i would love to see it in movies. movies is weird. movie called the great wall starring matt damon. it's about the great wall of china. i don't know about any white people around. you can do a movie about marco

polo. the great wall. i don't understand. >> the latest project called american myth. funny stuff on this comedy album ft all the best at the ceremony. >> thank you. >> come back and see us. >> i love it. >> that's our show tonight. thanks for watching from los angeles as always keep the faith. for more information on today's show visit tavis smiley at pbs. join me next time for conversation about the future of free trade. that's next time. we'll see you then.

and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

good evening from los angeles i'm tavis smiley, this year's academy awards may be all about la la land, one of the nominees feature is helping to diversify the ceremony. i am not your negro reveals the unfinished final book of james baldwin to a modern lens. the director is rowell peck who joins us tonight. he'll tell us about his own life escaping papa dock and growing up in the republic of congo and the bureau of brooklyn. glad you've joined us, director raul peck coming up right now.