what's interesting when i asked about merrick garland he told me that merrick garland was the first person he called after leaving the east room of the white house. he he knows him and respects and i wanted to get in touch with him as he started this journey. he described described him as a model nominate for the supreme court and hoped that he would be half the nominee himself. respect merrick garland very much and i was happy to hear those words from judge neil grosuch. we talked about the hobby lobby case i my concern about the out come of that case into respects. what they would give to this closely held hobby lobby corporation, powers under the bill of rights when it comes to religion, i thought would be odd what was necessary. he argued for his own point of view that it wasn't. i also was concerned about the lack of attention the impact the hobby lobby case on thousands of employees of hobby lobby. there is a great deal of attention given to the religious police of the owners and respecting those beliefs but along came the employees very little attention was given. he understood that

president obama ended up nominating merrick garland anyway. the definition of a non-controversial moderate choice. the republicans never even held a hearing on him. they have held open that seat for more than a year simply because they didn't want a democratic president to appoint someone to the court. several republican senators sid before the presidential election that if hillary clinton won the election they would continue to hold that seat open for four years, for eight years if necessary because hillary clinton is a democrat. new republican rule, democrats don't get to appoint supreme court justices. openly hewing newly defined washington, d.c. priniple that only republicans can nominate supreme court justices. the nominating process was already harder than it was historically and way more partisan and that was before the republicans held a seat open for a year for 100% partisan purposes which is the only reason the new president had this seat to fill tonight and now the nomination will go to neil gorsuch. this was going to be hard anyway

president obama ended up nominating merrick garland anyway. the definition of a non-controversial moderate choice. the republicans never even held a hearing on him. they have held open that seat for more than a year simply because they didn't want a democratic president to appoint someone to the court. several republican senators sid before the presidential election that if hillary clinton won the election they would continue to hold that seat open for four years, for eight years if necessary because hillary clinton is a democrat. new republican rule, democrats don't get to appoint supreme court justices. openly h lly hewing newly defin washington, d.c. principle that only republicans can nominate supreme court justices. the nominating process was already harder than it was historically and way more partisan and that was before the republicans held a seat open for a year for 100% partisan purposes which is the only reason the new president had this seat to fill tonight and now the nomination will go to neil gorsuch. this was going to be hard a

. >>> democrats just seething over the deep freeze of the high court nominee merrick garland.alling it a nomination to a stolen seat. democrats were quick to pounce on gorsuch, slamming him as outside the mainstream although they did not commit to a filibuster. and then the president appealed for the senate to fulfill its constitutional role. >> as this process now moves to the senate, i look forward with speaking with members from both sides of the aisle. to answering their questions and to hearing their concerns. >> i only hope that both democrats and republicans can come together, for once, for the good of the country. >> judge gorsuch, his first courtesy calls to senators begin in just hours. laura jarrett live for us bright and early from washington. good morning. >> reporter: good morning, well, agency the president mentioned in his remarks last night, neil gorsuch has an impressive resume and academy background. he's got degrees from columbia and oxford and harvard. his mom was the first to ahead the environmental protection agency. he clerked on the supreme court for t

and the democrats still infuriated by the way merrick garland was treated. >> yes. and on top of being infuriated by the way merrick garland was treated and being essentially held in limbo, walking the senate halls alone for a year, they are trying to set a precedent for what will happen for supreme court nominees going forward if as expected trump gets at least one more chance at a nomination in a four-year term and who knows if he's re-elected, how many beyond that. so they feel that there is a greater -- there's much more at stake than the antonin scalia seat, which if gorsuch is presumably confirmed to it, is essentially a net neutral in termof the balan of the court. the next seat is the one that would tip the court. >> you see the president and he's surrounded by mostly conservative interest groups especially wayne lapierre of the nra sitting next to him. you can see what kind of outreach he's trying to mobilize for this justice. >> absolutely. and the east room scene last night couldn't have been more, you know, showy and apprentice-like. this is really the f

still angry that republicans refused to hold hearings for obama's pick, merrick garland.u worry that maybe not with this pick but next one tables could turn. >> lot of democrats are angry at results of the election and number of them will point to merrick garland. i point out the situations are different. justice scalia passed away last year in the middle of a presidential election. it's been 80 years since the senate confirmed any judicial vacancy that occurred in a presidential election and republican majority announced last year before anyone was nominated we were going to keep this seat open and let the american people decide. court was hanging in the balance and think the election was referendum for the american people. do you want a principled constitutionalist to honor the constitution and uphold the bill of rights or a liberal judicial activist that hillary clinton promise. and people spoke on election day and my hope is senate democrats will respect the word of the american people. >> but merrick garland was centrist, no? >> i recognize that may be the sense in t

this whole thing about merrick garland, i don't buy it. if i thought it was unfair i would have done something different. in the last year of the presidency the nominating process was already afoot so we said wait to the next president. most people thought it was going to be clinton including me and i didn't vote for trump but he deserves this pick and he's going to get confirmed. he'll be a great justice. >> do you support a nuclear option if it were to come to that in the senate? >> it would be sad to me if we have to go that route with a man like this but he's going to get confirmed. i've took a lot of crap voting for obama's judges. i thought they were qualified. i've tried to be fair to everybody the best i know how to be. i didn't think garland should have been picked in the last year of obama's term after we started the primary process so if that's the argument it's very unpersuasive. this president won, he deserves the right to pick qualified people and this is one of the most qualified people i've ever met so time will tell. >> fo

this whole thing about merrick garland, i don't buy it. if i thought it was unfair i would have done something different. in the last year of the presiden the nominating process was already afoot so we said wait to the next president. most people thoughit was goi to be clinton including me and i didn't vote for trump but he deserves this pick and he's going to get confirmed. he'll be a great justice. >> do you support a nuclear option if it were to come to that in the senate? >> it would be sad to me if we have to go that route with a man like this but he's going to get confirmed. i've took a lot of crap voting for obama's judges. i thought they were qualified. i've tried to be fair to everybody the best i know how to be. i didn't think garland should have been picked in the last year of obama's term after we started the primary process so if that's the argument it's very unpersuasive. this president won, he deserves the right to pick qualified people and this is one of the most qualified people i've ever met so time will tell. >> forgive

under obamacare. >> jeffrey, where do you put in relation to merrick garland? he's far more deserve an judge garland and in interesting ways he might even more more conservative in some areas that justice scalia and more liberal in others. the big area is regulation. judge gorsuch has criticized the doctrine that says judges should defer to regulatory agencies. judge gorsuch has been a strong enforcer of the fourth amendment rights of unreasonable searches and seizures. the bottom line is this is someone who clerked for judge anthony kennedy. kennedy trusts gorsuch. gorsuch has the ability to move kennedy to the right. it's really hard to imagine a more effective conservative voice for really moving the conservative agenda forward. and judge gorsuch is in that sense a home run. >> a lot of speculation about that the last few days, that this nominee was directed at a specific supreme court justice who's 80 years old, anthony kennedy, to y, look, if you'd like to rest, this is the kind of nominee we put up. but putting him up now doesn't mean that's who you put u

last year, republicans refused to consider president obama's nominee for the seat....merrick garland. that was a big gamble leading up to the election, and it worked out for the g-o-p. democrats are already vowing to delay the process for confirming judge neil gorsuch to the supreme court .kron 4's alecia reid continues our coverage she spoke with people on both sides of the aisle about president trump's pick. most are expecting democrats in the senate to fight this nomination.not because he isn't qulified, but because donald trump picked him.pkg sot - the democrats right now have a lot of issues in respect to donald trumpneil gorsuch donald trump's nominee to replace supreme court justicce antonin scalia who passed away.tom del beccaro / former chairman california republican party sot - he's very well liked..it's the next supreme court justice where they're going to fight tooth and nailgorsuch will have a hearing in front of the senate judiciary committee, which is majority republican. he will still need left wing votes.dean john trasvina /usf school of law sot - there are still step

merrick garland should be on the supreme court right now. neil's call to him is the kind of graciousness that exemplifies who he is as a person. >> johnathan, melissa points to it, this is a good example of the kind of situation where the senate is right now, republicans were able to get their supreme court nominee in neil gorsuch because merrick garland was iced out. and now republicans are saying go along with us. >> well, senate republicans have the majority. unfortunately there's a long tradition of obstructing judicial nominees, a long tradition of denying presidents their nominees in the last year of their term. it's happened for quite a few people in the lower appellate courts. it's unfortunate it happened here. there's no question neil gorsuch is supremely well qualified, supremely respected across the ideological spectrum, one of the foremost appellate judges in our country and clearly the sort of person we want want on the supreme court. >> we haven't seen what happened to merrick garland for this long, in this way. melissa, you're

what you did when merrick garland's name was sent. for the first time ever, ever in the history of the united states senate, you, senator mcconnell, denied a hearing and a vote to a presidential nominee for the supreme court. never happened before, not once in history. and if you think, well, maybe the democrats didn't have a chance to show the same steel will, the same political determination, last year in his presidency, ronald reagan nominated anthony kennedy to fill a vacancy on the supreme court mpt he sent that nomination down to the senate. i believe senator biden was the chair of the judiciary committee at the time. there was a democratic majority. the last year of the reagan presidency, the so-called lame duck year by senator mcconnell's description, the democratic majority in the senate gave president reagan the respect of honoring his constitutional responsibility of filling that vacancy, sent anthony kennedy to serve on the supreme court. so senator mcconnell asks what's changed? he's changed. he's changed the senate. and

i think if they wanted merrick garland on the supreme court they would have elected hillary clinton, but they did not. so, they wanted donald trump to make those nominations instead. in fact, brooke, when you look at the exit polling, the number two issue were judicial appointments. it ranked only behind the economy. trump won those voters by 15 points. i think this is following perfectly in line with what the people wanted in november. >> the minority of people who voted for him. >> keith, i think that i hear you -- they're picked off about the merrick garland thing. they have a fired up base. you have as pointed out these ten democratic senators in these trump states where they're up for battle in two years. and if you're one of these democratic senators, what would you do? >> well, brooke, i think the thing that gets ignored a lot of times when we talk about these issues for democratic senators and members of congress is that the base of democrats are more likely and more enthusiastic about supporting democrats who stand up for democratic values. democrats who are sort of milk toa

they say that they should fight and they should fight hard because of the weight you dealt with merrick garlandre is the senate minority leader talking on that issue. >> clearly what they did with garland was wrong, but we are not playing tit for tat here. we're not going to do with the republican state. but if the candidate is out of the mainstream, i can tell you, i will fight and my caucus will fight tooth and nail against him. they won't have 60 votes to put in and out of the mainstream nominee, then they have to make a choice to change the rules. going to be very hard for them to change the rules because there are a handful of republicans who believe in the institution of the senate and don't change the rules. >> bret: you understand the pressure that will be on the democrats to hold the line, even these democrats from red states. >> the facts are not irrelevant with the garland nomination was in the middle of a presidential election year, not at the beginning of a term. the senate had not confirmed a vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year in eight years. this is the beginni

they say that they should fight and they should fight hard because of the weight you dealt with merrick garlandre is the senate minority leader talking on that issue. >> clearly what they did with garland was wrong, but we are not playing tit for tat here. we're not going to do with the republican state. but if the candidate is out of the mainstream, i can tell you, i will fight and my caucus will fight tooth and nail against him. they won't have 60 votes to put in and out of the mainstream nominee, then they have to make a choice to change the rules. going to be very hard for them to change the rules because there are a handful of republicans who believe in the institution of the senate and don't change the rules. >> bret: you understand the pressure that will be on the democrats to hold the line, even these democrats from red states. >> the facts are not irrelevant with the garland nomination was in the middle of a presidential election year, not at the beginning of a term. the senate had not confirmed a vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year in eight years. this is the beginni

naming merrick garland his nomination in march, but the u.s. senate >> ladies and gentlemen, the presidents of th of the united states. [applause] president trump: thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. scalia 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 court. i promised to select someone who respects our laws and is representative of our constitution and who loves the constitution. and someone who interprets 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

they say that they should fight and they should fight hard because of the weight you dealt with merrick garlandre is the senate minority leader talking on that issue. >> clearly what they did with garland was wrong, but we are not playing tit for tat here. we're not going to do with the republican state. but if the candidate is out of the mainstream, i can tell you, i will fight and my caucus will fight tooth and nail against him. they won't have 60 votes to put in and out of the mainstream nominee, then they have to make a choice to change the rules. going to be very hard for them to change the rules because there are a handful of republicans who believe in the institution of the senate and don't change the rules. >> bret: you understand the pressure that will be on the democrats to hold the line, even these democrats from red states. >> the facts are not irrelevant with the garland nomination was in the middle of a presidential election year, not at the beginning of a term. the senate had not confirmed a vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year in eight years. this is the beginni

caller: i would like to say like america garland, -- merrick garland, neil gorsuch is a driven judge for an american and for that reason i feel it is only fair he receives the exact garland wasration given. host: do you think the democrats and obstruct his nomination slow walk the nomination process then? caller: i think when we are looking at the architect of the hobby lobby decision, i think democrats have every reason to consider the political outcome of this action, or his nomination. yeah, i think they will obstrcut it and they have every reason to. i don't think until america garland gets consideration. host: mark nolar tweeted this out. he said for reference, antonin scalia a died february 13, 2016. president obama nominated merrick garland march 16. good evening to mary lou. caller: thank you for c-span. with this pick, antonin scalia 's spirit will remain on the supreme court. i think for a long time now we have been living in a country of the legality and immorality. if donald trump is able to get enough supreme court judges on that court, hopefully we will be able to and th

not merrick garland.my: ian millhiser, on environmental issues, this colorado jurist neil gorsuch. decision on the defense counsel and whether or ,anneu think his mother gorsuch, ultimately forced out over corruption scandal, has relevance here. >> i am cautious about imputing the views of the mother to the sun, but when you look at your for such's record, it looks like the apple to not fall far from the tree. what the chevron case is, the abron -- chevron doctrine is doctrine of modesty. it says courts should recognize they're not elected initiative for too much of what the agencies do when those agencies try to do their job. what is going to happen is gorsuch succeeds in dismantling chevron, able shift power from the federal agencies, which are responsible to an elected president to the unelected judiciary at the moment when republicans are consolidating their control over the judiciary. and that means if four years from now there is a democratic president, that democratic president could find it very h

when the president told him he would be nominated to serve on the nation's highest court, was to merrick garlandhat was nice. very nice. >> he made is clear in each of these meetings he has great respect for judge garland. >> that was very nice of him. well, we have siecivility in washington. >> yes. >> that's a first. anyway, very nice to see you. >> great to see you, greta. >>> after the break, controversy over president trump, his daughter, ivanka, and a department store. is this about business or politics? >>> in a minute now, the senate to begin voting on president trump's pick for attorney general of the united states. to err is human. to anticipate is lexus. experience the lexus rx with advanced safety standard. experience amazing. i have the worst cold i better take something. . dayquil liquid gels don't treat your runny nose. seriously? alka-seltzer plus cold and cough liquid gels fights your worst cold symptoms plus your runny nose. oh, what a relief it is. ♪ >>> and we're back with more on president trump using twitter to slam nordstrom for dropping his daughter, ivanka's, clothing li

we had merrick garland nominated a year ago, more than a year -- a year ago. and he never got a conversation with a republican for a whole year. he was a center left, close to center, just like your guy people shay is a center right. why was one centrist not given a conversation and your version of a center right person demanding to be confirmed? what's the difference here? what is this deal you got here? no democratic president can pick a candidate bullet you guys can. >> it was highly unusual for the president to have made that selection in on election year. >> really? >> absolutely, it was unusual. >> i don't care, you can cite anybody you want, the bottom line is we were supposed to have a supreme court, therefore ties couldn't be broken, therefore they couldn't take up the most controversial cases because they weren't going to be able to be decisive. you know the problem of mathematics. you need nine to decide something and they had eight. you're saying the court should be -- that's what you're arguing? a year off? >> no, the court will continue -- the co

we'll see that happen again unless we insist on a moderate like merrick garland. >> you're not getting that. >> we may not and if we don't i think we should filibuster and oppose -- >> all the way. hold that vacant as long as you possibly can? >> we ought to insist on a consensus choice because anything less will reward the senate republicans for what i think is the most severe debasement of the supreme court we've ever seen. we'll see that tactic again if it is rewarded. it's more than just a tit for tat. it is i think a repudiation of what the republicans did. so i think they need to insist on a consensus and moderate candidate or if i were in the senate i would vigorously oppose any new conservative to the court. >> all right. thank you very much. i appreciate your time. as we said, the congressman pointing out we are moments away from this major announcement. in the meantime, the white house calls it a betrayal, doubling down on firing the attorney general for defying the president. >>> and how are muslims reacting to trump's travel ban? muslims in america? >> i say to muslims they

had mitch mcconnell given merrick garland his hearing you'd have a vote even with republicans in charge. republicans wouldn't be at this moment replacing antonin scalia with a conservative justice. you end up look aths the results of the 2010 midterm elections and 2014 midterm elections. you end up fighting the president and his party almost every step of the way and get rewarded at the ballot box. when you have that type of situation in which you by obstru obstructing, you not only don't have to pay a price but get rewarded for it. that only means the playbook for the opposition the next time around is to do the same thing. watch, rinse and repeat and you have exact same thing, watch, rinse and repeat and almost all of the norms are taken off. >> but really quickly, mark, is mitch mcconnell a guy who wants to be known as somebody who threw all that tradition out the window? >> yeah. and chris, there is -- he does not want to have to do this and eliminate the filibuster, but he's made it pretty clear that he will if he needs to get there. the same reason harry reid eliminated the filibu

a quote, stolen seat, referring to when they chose not to hold a hearing for merrick garland.s time around, oregon democratic senator jeff berkley has promised to filibuster a fight, meaning trump's nominee would need 60 votes to be confirmed by the senate. it would also mark only the second time in history the senate has mounted a filibuster against a high court to pick. in 2006, democrats, including then senator barack obama, tried and failed to block the confirmation of samuel alito. texas senator ted cruz said, if the democrats this time plan to block president trump's nominee, then, republicans should use this so-called nuclear option. that is where the senate can change the rules, allowing the supreme court nominee to be confirmed with only 51 votes. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell is reportedly against changing their rules. but he also guaranteed that trump's nominee will be confirmed. remember in 2013, then senate majority leader harry reid upended nearly 40 years of precedent by using the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster of our president obama's feder

caller: i want to say america are got -- merrick garland got robbed. host: merrick garland was selected by president obama a month after the death of justice scalia. many democrats vowing to filibuster the nomination of judge gorsuch even before the nomination was announced this evening, making that pretty well known. a a lot of comments on both sides. this is from betty mccollum, saying "gorsuch is the architect of the hobby lobby which allowed employers to deny female employees access to contraception." next is cherry hill, new jersey. mike, good evening. caller: hello, thank you. i just want no one to be fooled by this process. gains processly a the matter what party is in control. this particular judge, justice elect seems to be well spoken, seems to be a nice guy. let us not be full that he was selected based on what the republicans in this case wanted to hear fantasy in their nominee. unfortunately, for example, in the area of choice or in gun legislation -- we are standing by and allowing the right-wing ideologues to find what our government sho

and with merrick garland, people felt like that's what happened.imately it was our team says we're not giving this guy a vote so we can preserve it for our party as opposed to we will play the constitutionally prescribed role of advising and consenting. >> well, the legislature didn't consent so you're right there was a decision not to consent but your broader point is surely true which is the founders envisioned a world where when you serve in the legislature you don't have partisan lenses as the first thing you think about. you should think about jealously guarding your prerogatives for the branch. i'm the third most conservative guy by voting record but i'm not partisan. when i think about what matters as a dad and father and husker football fan, i don't start with party loyalty in that top eight or ten and it would be great if the senate were again the greatest deliberative body in the world. it's a fanciful excuse and if you look at c-span 2, there's one person in there talking to nobody except their own base through a television camera with t

merrick garland. the republicans wouldn't even hold hearings for nearly a year. some democrats calling it a stolen seat. both the president and judge gorsuch know they are in for a tough fight. >> as this process now moves to the senate, i look forward with speaking with members from both sides of the aisle. to answering their questions and to hearing their concerns. >> i only hope that both democrats and republicans can come together, for once, for the good of the country. >> and you hear him say for once, now that he's president now, it's not president's nominee being discussed. so a different set of standards democrats would say there. nevertheless, the first courtesy call from judge gorsuch with senators begin in just hours. let's bring in laura jarrett live from the white house. the white house did a very good keeping this a secret. and the theatrics surrounding it very well orchestrated. that's right, john. as the president announced last night, neil gorsuch has an impressive academy background. he's got degrees from columbia, harvard law school, oxford. he

host: is this about merrick garland?aller: it was biden that told bush he could not nominate a supreme court nominee on the last year of his term. host: it was something called the biden doctrine at the time. something he said on the senate floor. caller: so, what is the big deal now? what is the difference now? just a lot of people trying to boycott this man whatever he's tried to do. we need to move on. we won't be able to do anything with all these marches and riots and stuff. what do you think about the selection of the judge himself? do you have any thoughts on the president's choice? caller: i don't know a lot about this man. he will go through the proper channels to get vetted. host: sadie in apple valley, california. independent line. caller: good morning. an independent. , they other caller said should have left the obama supreme court justice go through the process. we have this process where they want him to go through and the democrats have the right to -- he is not for the people. this is a right religious t

the democrats, and they have real reason to believe -- >> merrick garland's seat. and you know, when the president said well gorsuch was confirmed for appellate court 98-0, so was merrick garland. and the fact when mitch mcconnell says let the people decide, well the people did decide in the 2012 election. and there's nothing in the constitution that says that president has only a three year term. so now trump actually lost by three million, so that's the people deciding by eight million votes, i'm just -- the reason i mention that -- >> and i want to get the other side. >> it's the reason why democrats feel so strongly. nothing to do with gorsuch as a person. >> exactly. i feel like there's two fights, gorsuch, which i think if you put democrats in a sealed room, they'd say yeah, he's qualified, but there's a lot of scar tissue here. >> a lot of scar tissue, but it's like at the moment that the republicans are playing chess and the democrats are playing checkers. from the republican point of view, they win either way. this is the that shall will unite the republic

emily, first, can we fix him on the scale in relation to merrick garland?e have moved to the right. how far to the right? >> we've moved far to the right. judge gorsuch talked about himself in terms of scalia. he talks about his strict adherence to the constitution as it was written in the 18 thd century. that's a very scalia-like idea. and he's written some opinions that demonstrate that. for example, he found that employers who didn't want to provide contraception for women because of their religious believes did not have to do that. >> under the affordable care act? >> exactly. underoba under obamacare. >> jeffrey, where do you put in relation to merck ghemercrick g? >> he's far more deserve an judge garland and in interesting ways he might even more more conservative in some areas that justice scalia and more liberal in others. the big area is regulation. judge gorsuch has criticized the doctrine that says judges should defer to regulatory agencies. judge gorsuch has been a strong enforcer of the fourth amendment rights of unreasonable searches and seiz

at every level of our judiciary, but the best example was the unprecedented blockade of judge merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court. judge garland was an obvious consensus nominee and a straight shooter who followed the law. so why block it? the problem was that judge garland's career didn't reflect a sufficient willingness to bend the law to suit the needs of the rich and powerful, and for that sin far right groups financed by big business interests spent millions of dollars attacking him to torpedo his nomination and keep that seat open. but they did something else that is even more damaging. far right groups also drew up a list of acceptable supreme court nominees, people who demonstrated that they were sympathetic to the rich and the powerful. judge neil gorsuch made the cut, and his nomination is their reward. judge gorsuch is intelligent and accomplished. he is polite and respectful and articulate, but make no mistake. his professional record which i have reviewed in detail clearly and consistently favors the interests of big corporations over workers, big corporations over co

democrats are pointing out, so is merrick garland, imminently qualified. republicans didn't give the hearing for nine months. why is this different? >> well, first let me agree with you strongly that judge neil gorsuch is exceptionally qualified to serve on the supreme court of the united states. he actually was confirmed unanimously by the united states senate for the tenth circuit a decade ago, and has an academic career that spans from columbia to harvard to oxford. and yet he's a man of the west, a fourth-generation coloradan. and i think he brings practical, real-word experience, but an extraordinary intellect to succeed, not replace, the late justice antonin scalia. and i know the president's grateful that judge gorsuch is willing to step forward. and i think it's one more example of president trump keeping his word to the american people to appoint to the court someone who will be faithful to the constitution and apply the law as written. >> woodruff: but if republicans weren't willing to hold a hearing for nine months for president obama's pick for

as your other guest just mentioned, they're certainly mad as hornets about merrick garland. jeff merkley, the senator from oregon, is referring to this as a stolen seat and has vowed before the nominee was even named to lead a filibuster. i'm skeptical whether they'll be able to do that successfully. but no question they're going to make a lot of noise and drag this process out. and it won't be pleasant for judge gorsuch. >> lynn, i want to pose this question to you, because i've been thinking about this throughout our discussion. these massive protests are going on across the country, right? and the democrats are doing this kind of stuff in the senate to try to slow things and make things more difficult for the republicans and for president trump. president obama recently chimed in over this travel ban thing, right? so what if president obama starts to become more and more vocal? >> i think if your question is what's the impact, carol, i think it could be. i think, you know, president obama i think, former president obama, will weigh in when trump deals with things that you

we know what happened to merrick garland.e should have gotten meetings and conversations on the hill and people don't like that either. howie: thanks very much for stopping by this sunday. after the break, it's super bowl sunday. we'll go live to houston in just a moment. howie: nice graphic as we count down to the super bowl. the usual media hype has turned political. tom brady was asked about his relationship with donald trump. >> i'm not talking politics. why? because i want to focus on the positive aspects of this game. the teammates and the reasons why we are here. and, you know, taking a lot of hard work to get to this point. howie: what's the matter of you sports reporters? big game, nfl championship on the line, patriots, tom brady in the game again and they keep asking him about his relationship with trump. what does it have to do with the super bowl? >> it's a time-honored tradition to ask players in the super bowl about something other than the super bowl. certainly brady has a history of this. brady had the make a

the overhang of garland which has left many of us better, myself included, merrick garland no less intelligent or descent, or less deserving of a seat on that court. and the resistance to garland will create some storm clouds for judge gorsuch. >> tucker: i believe that, both victims of this at the moment. great to see you. we will be covering on? ♪ 's but one president trump nominates a conservative judge, and advocate for religious freedom, and a strict constructn list to be the next justice of the supreme court. and now the fireworks begin. this is "special report." ♪ good evening, welcome to washington, i'm bret baier. this is a special edition of "special report" on president trump's nomination for the u.s. supreme court. exit polls show it was a major factor in his upset win in november. tonight, the president selected tenth u.s. circuit court of appeals judge, neil gorsuch, to fill the seat left

. -- merrick garland. he signaled this would be a big decision for democrats on whether or not to support this nomination. do you get a sense of whether or not they are open to this nominee? >> i think it is going to be hard for them. i think they realize that his record doesn't give them a lot of those names. i think the opposition forces in the progressive wing of the party will be pushing to unearth new findings in him. >> i was struck by the visible frustration you could see in democrats, including senator garden over what happened to america garland that to merrick garland last year -- what happened to merrick garland last year. i think that is a complicating to thein addition activist who want democrats to block this. a lot of these lawmakers are institutional lists. >> vice president pence will be .eeded on monday to break a tie >> it would be the first time in history they break on a high-ranking nominee. >> there will be a few more confirmation votes on a few more nominees. we will see jeff sessio

you held up merrick garland. president obama had almost a year left in office to have him named to the supreme court. you republicans held that up. why isn't turn-about fair play for the democrats to do the same thing? >> it is a fundamentally different circumstance. one, no vacancy that occurred in a presidential election year has been filled for 80 years, eight decades. what republicans said when that vacancy occurred is we're going to allow the american people to decide. this election was in a real sense a referendum for the american people. do you want a constitutionalist who will have a limbed, humblinged view of the judiciary or someone to impose policy preferences. we the people spoke on election day in november. this will issue i believe was a vital issue to president trump defeating hillary clinton and now respecting the will of the people. it's income pekucumbent on the advise and consent and we should confirm. >> which cases would you like to see taken by this court as soon as possible if he's confirme

we know what happened to merrick garland.should have gotten meetings and conversations on the hill and people don't like that either. howie: thanks very much for stopping by this sunday. after the break, it's super bowl sunday. we'll go live to houston in just a moment. (avo) did you know two areas of your brain can make it hard to lose weight? contrave is an fda-approved weight-loss medicine that may help adults who are overweight or struggle with obesity lose weight and keep it off. contrave is believed to work on two areas of the brain: your hunger center... (woman) i'm so hungry. (avo) to reduce hunger. and your reward system... (woman) ice cream. french fries. (avo) to help control cravings. across three long-term studies, contrave patients lost approximately 2-4x more weight than with diet and exercise alone. contrave is not for everyone. one ingredient in contrave may increase suicidal thoughts or actions in some children, teens, and young adults within the first few months. other serious side effects include seizures,

i think given what happened in the past, and the recent past with merrick garland, where republicans 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 overhang of garland which has left many of us better, myself included, merrick garland no less intelligentent, or less deserving of a seat on that court. and the resistance to garland will create some storm clouds for judge gorsuch. >> tucker: i believe that, both victims of this at the moment. great to see you. we will be covering this tomorrow night, we will see you then at 9:00. "hannity" up next. have a great night. >> sean: tanks, tucker. this is a fox news alert, president trump has nominated judge neil gorsuch to serve on the supreme court. the man who helped the president make the big selection, and many other guests will be here with reaction. president trump's decision tonight is lee yet another example of donald trump keeping promises to you, the american people. that is tonight's opening monologue. it didn't take president trump very long to fulfill yet another key pledge from his campaign by nominating judge neil gorsuch to the u.s. supreme court. during our primetime announcement earlier tonight, let's

this is merrick garland's seat, he should have been voted on or vetted. we're going to put this seat in a time capsule, we're going to send it a year out to a republican president, that theft is a big problem for the integrity of the supreme court and for the senate. >> i understand that objection, i do, i certainly agree, it's sort of an unprecedented situation we've gone through to get to this moment. i guess it raises the question, if the democratic response to that is okay, therefore we are not going to treat this as a normal nomination, we are going to insist on a filibuster. we will insist on 60 votes. doesn't that just worsen the situation going forward? >> no, if you let this stand, it simply says it's an imitation to every majority in the future to engage in similar theft. so it's a war for decades to come. we can take a nomination senate two years in the future. three years in the future. this wouldn't damage the fashion, but unfortunately it has, and now we have to do what we can to rectify it so that the integrity of the court is not so severe

we had merrick garland nominated a year ago, more than a year -- a year ago. and he never got a conversation with a republican for a whole year. he was a center left, close to center, just like your guy people shay is a center right. why was one centrist not given a conversation and your version of a center right person demanding to be confirmed? what's the difference here? what is this deayou got here? no democratic president can pick a candidate but you guys can. >> it was highly unusual for the president to have made that selection in on election year. >> really? >> absolutely, it was unusual. >> i don't care, you can cite anybody you want, the bottom line is we were supposed to have a supreme court, therefore ties couldn't be broken, therefore they couldn't take up the most controversial cases because they weren't going to be able to be decisive. you know the problem of mathematics. you need nine to decide something and they had eight. you're saying the court should be -- that's what you're arguing? a year off? >> no, the court will continue -- the court w

but that didn't matter at all from merrick garland who enjoyed a similarly sterling reputation. >> well i hear what you're saying, chris, but i also know that washington is filled with people who literally talk like we're in a middle eastern blood feud and there's always somebody who before did something before did something before did something before and it's turtles all the way down but fundamentally this is the kind of guy who should be on the court. the president just ran for office. he had his list of 21, it was pretty darn transparent, obviously the president and i have had differences on a lot of issues. he had his list of 21, he's nominated somebody off that list of 21 and i've been reading judge gorsuch's opinions over the course of the last three weeks and frankly i can't find his policy views on anything. when i'm reading these opinions, i assume late at night when he takes off his robe and gets in front of espn or msnbc or whatever he watches, i'm sure he has policy preferences and personal views but i don't know what they are and frankly i don't care because that's not a j