justice alito: ok. mr. goldberg: so -- justice alito: even if it were limited to to those -- mr. goldberg: right. justice alito: you would say it's unconstitutional. mr. goldberg: our positionand for the very reason we've talked about, which is that this -- just like the law in the jews for jesus airport case from los angeles that said no first amendment activity in this place, this is a law that says no first amendment activity, and it says it indiscriminate, so -- justice sotomayor: counsel, i mean, one of my problems with all of these sites today is that none of them are purely or very few of them are purely anything anymore. mr. goldberg: right. justice sotomayor: take something like linkedin, which many, many people in our society today are looking for jobs there, but high school students are permitted to look for jobs and to post their data, personal data on that site. so, is that traditional social media or not? mr. goldberg: i think the state says that it is because it meets the definition. i just want to get back to justice alito's question -- justice sotomayor: but that

fisher: well, it might -- justice alito: isn't that -- mr. fisher: it might be, justice alito, i'm describing what it means to provide an equal educational opportunity. if you don't think that i'm actually -- justice alito: well, i understand what an equal outcome would be, but i don't understand what an equal opportunity means when an equal outcome is not practical. mr. fisher: what it means is that you give the -- so when you're dealing with a child who cannot get to grade level -- i think that's what you're asking -- what it means -- and this is in a 2005 guidance document by the department of education -- what it means is you're giving children with disabilities equally challenging curriculum on the academic side and in terms of their functional and -- functional and developmental goals. justice kagan: but for those -- mr. fisher: the standard -- i would just say the standard is highest possible standards achievable directly in the text of the statute. justice kagan: but for those of us who have some feeling that the word "equality" is a

>> no, justice alito. of course, it wouldn't be different. >> what rule would apply there. >> the rule would apply if he was 19 standing unarmed in mexico when was shot. >> what if he was armed but he had his hands up. >> again, we're not asking for a win here. we're simply asking if the constitution applies and that he can, the defense of self-defense by the officer can happen at the trial court level. >> what if he wasn't in this culvert but he was 200 yards beyond in mexico. would it be different then? >> it may it be under the bu ma din element of nature of the site. so this culvert is unique. if the court, i would invite the court to look at exhibit 180 of the petition's an ben dix which is a picture of the culvert. >> what if the officer was not standing in the united states but actually ran a short distance across the border into mexico? that would seem to be worse, wouldn't it? would you say the rule would be different there. >> justice alito, it may be because first the border patrol agents are st

bush's second nominee to the supreme court was judge samuel alito. he was confirmed 58-42 to fill the seat of retiring justice sandra day o'connor, just four months after the confirmation of chief justice john roberts. judge alito had previously been unanimously confirmed to the third circuit court of appeals. he had also served as u.s. attorney in new england. at his confirmation hearing, justice alito was introduced by former new jersey republican governor, christine todd wittman. ms. wittman: like other americans, i have read many articles dissecting positions judge alito has taken throughout his career, trying to discern how he might decide on issues likely to appear before the supreme court, that he wou confront as a justice. tie have examined the record. ms. whitman: in the final analysis, my decision to support judge alito for this position is not based on whether i agree with him on a particular issue or set of issues, or on his conformity with any political, particular political ideology. in fact, while we may agree on some political issues,

justice alito is not in that process. he likes to have the clerks review all of the petitions under his own standards. but that wasn't true the first year he was on the court. as i remember, justice alito, was in the cert pool for a while until he got his feet under him on the court and decided what he wanted to do. so i don't know whether the judge has any particular plan about that. i'm sure we'll all find out. i'm also, you know, wouldn't be surprised if, you know, you can change your mind about that over time. on criminal law jurisprudence, i don't know if anyone else has an opinion about that. he's, i think, there are a number of cases where like justice scalia, if the law says the defendant gets to win, the defendant gets to win. and that's sort of the end of it. sometimes there are particular cases where the judge has taken a pretty rigorously textual approach to a criminal statute that disfavored the government and his opinions to me reflect the same kind of approach to that that justice scalia had. >> i think the

samuel alito, 2006. sonia sotomayor, 2009. and elena kagan in 2010. watch thursday at 8:00 p.m. astern on c-span2. earlier today the justice department announced charges were being brought against four people, including two russian intelligence officers, for the 2014 hacking of 500 million yahoo accounts. his is 25 minutes. >> good morning, thank you for being here today. i'm mary mccord, acting director

president bush's second nominee to the supreme court was judge samuel alito. he was confirmed 58-42 to fill the seat of retiring justice sandra day o'connor for months after the confirmation of chief justice john roberts. judge alito had been previously confirmed to the third circuit court of appeals. he had served as u.s. attorney in new jersey. hearing, permission justice alito was introduced by >>mer new jersey republican governor christie todd whitman. >>like other americans i have read many articles dissecting judge alito has taken throughout his career, train to discern on .ow he might judge on issues i have examined the record. mythe final analysis, decision to support judge alito for this position is not based on whether i agree with him on a particular issue or set of conformity tohis any political ideology. in fact, while we may agree on some issues i know there others in which we disagree. nevertheless, once agreement or disagreement of political questions is after all, ultimately irrelevant to the issue of whether or not judge alito should serve as

justice alito is not in that process. he likes to have his clerks review all petitions under his own standards. but that wasn't true the first year he was on the court. as i remember, alito was in the pool a while, until he decided what he wanted to do. so i don't know whether the judge has any particular plan about that. i'm sure we will find out but i wouldn't be surprised if you change your mind about that over time. on criminal law jurisprudence, there are a number of cases where like justice scalia, if the law says the defendant gets to win, the defendant gets to win and that's sort of the end of it. there are particular cases where the judges just favored the government and his opinions to me reflect the same approach to that that justice scalia had. >> i think the important thing to know about that is that justice jackson was attorney general before he was nominated to the bench. one of the interesting things about justice jackson is he took on the role of the judge very serious. as in he was an advocate when he wa

the two george bush nominees, roberts and alito, the two barack obama nominee s, kagan and sotomayor, all passed the 60 votes. there is no reason why gorsuch shouldn't. if he can't is not change the rule, change the nominee. >> alito had 58. >> there was a cloture vote where he had over 70. >> he wound up in the end with 58. >> i said each justice met a 60-vote threshold. >> the american bar association says that neil gorsuch is highly qualified. do you believe that he's highly qualified? >> the issue is what his ideology is. he says he's going to call it down the middle. someone sofer eventually supported by the federalist society which has a history of moving the courts to the right. why are they doing that and spending $10 million these hard right groups to support him? is it because he's going to be a neutral judge and call balls and strikes? i don't believe so. if you look at his early history and court cases that doesn't support that. he has an instinctive reaction in too many cases to side with the big corporate special interest rather than the individuals. and supreme court is

chairman, some have segued that judge alito has an ideological agenda. believe an honest review of his record will fine that his onlying -- only agenda is fidely to his contract. if judge alead too has a bias it's in favor of nave narrowly drawn opinions. >> i am honored to be nominatedded and humbled to have been nominatedded for the seat now held by justice o'connor. justice o'connor has been a pioneer and her dedicated service on the supreme court will never be forgotten and the people of the country certainly owe her a great debt for the service that she has provided. i'm very thankful to the president for nominating me, and i'm also thankful to the members of this committee and many other senators who took time from their busy schedules to meet with me. that was a great honor for me and i appreciate all of the courtesies that were extended tomer during the visits and i want to thank senator lottenberg and governor whitman for coming here. in the previous weeks an all story bat lawyer who allergid the case before a the supreme court came to my mind a

>> justice alito is not wrong. if it has first amendment concerns if the state were to say here is how you display your prices it could be theoretically a disclosure regime and that is what this was posited for disclosure -- >> i am a little like justice alito and elena kagan, not sure what you are saying about the statute, it is not necessarily vague. the statute simply says the sales transactions involve a surcharge on the credit card by cash, check or similar means of. to be it was very simple, one price for everything, you walk in, forget about i don't know where they get this from, or the statute permits that, on the plane terms one price, and justice breyer, that was okay. i am hard-pressed to see if that is the interpretation to what i view as the plane meaning of the statute, that would be unconstitutional. >> it does not function in a vacuum. some of them put in their text a surcharge is not okay or not okay. everyone has agreed it has been interpreted in parallel with those statutes. >> really nice agreem

charlie: you suggest that he is asthe right, but as far alito, scalia, thomas? emily: justice thomas is on the right and there are issues where he would be more in alignment with thomas then roberts or alito, like the power of the administrative state. we have had a rule where courts differ to federal agencies to sort out ambiguous statutes and writing rules. judge gorsuch has questioned that precedent. to theakes that you logical endpoint on the supreme court, he would tear down a lot of authority federal agencies have to craft rules and regulations. rules that a lot of career employees have crafted. out of thoseaken powers, it gets sent back to congress. charlie: issues of war and peace? he signed onto and helped shape some of the bush administration controversial policies. he supported a signing statement that president bush signed that retained his power to decide what is torture when congress was trying to take it away from him. on those issues, he comes across as conservative and a proponent of presidential power. charlie: the rights of defendants? emily:

>> but justice alito isn't wrong. it would certainly implicate first amendment concerns if the state were to say here's how have to display your prices. it could be a theoretically a disclosure regime -- >> counselor, i'm part -- i'm a little bit like justice alito and less than justice kagan. i'm not sure what you or anybody is saying about this stature. i just don't see anything about speech in the stature. the stature simply says, no seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on aed whoer who elects to use a credit card in a payment. to me it's very simple -- one price for everything. you walk in. forget -- i don't know where they get the discount from. or that the stature permits that. because what it says, to me on its plain terms is one price. and used to justice breyer that was okay. certainly would be i'm hard pressed to see if that's the interpretation given to what i view as the plain viewing of the stature. >> this doesn't function in a vacuum. in other states, some put in their text is a surcha

justice o'connor has been a pioneer justice alito:. for dedicated service -- i'm very thankful to the president for nominating me and i am also thankful to the members of this committee and many other senators who took time from their busy schedules to meet with me. that was a great honor for may. i appreciate all of the courtesies that were extended to make during those visits. i want to thank senator lautenberg and government -- governor whitman for coming kind and for their introductions. an old story about a lawyer has come to my mind. i thought i might begin this afternoon i sharing that story. the story goes as follows. this was a lawyer who never argued a case before. again --argument began, one of the justices said how had you begotten here? the lawyer was rather nervous and he took the question literally and he said i came ohioon the baltimore and railroad. this story has come to my mind because in recent weeks i have often asked myself how the world did i get here? i want to try to angela today. not by saying that i came here

three of them got more than 60 votes and alito got more than 60 when there was attempted filibuster. gorsuch should have to meet the same bar, not change the rules to change it. reporter: that's just a precedent. senator schumer: well, of course. there's no rule now that says they're changing the rules. they could change them any way they want. reporter: if somebody has to file a cloture motion, it's not -- they don't have to. senator schumer: we believe in a 60-vote threshold. that's why we're filing a cloture motion. that's allowed in the rules right now. reporter: right. >> last question. senator blumenthal: i interrupted the second question. reporter: another subject. blumeblume well, you don't get -- senator blumenthal: well, you don't get to ask. reporter: they said, hello, chuck. are you going to work with him on health care? senator schumer: we sent a letter saying we want to work with you on health care. make sure you don't undermine the a.c.a. because you're angry or out of vengeance because if you undermine our health care system you're hurting americans. that's not being

chairman, some have suggested that judge alito has an ideological agenda. an honest and complete review of his record as a whole will find that his only agenda is fidelity to his judicial craft. if judge alito has a bias, it's in favor of narrowly drawn opinions that respect precedent and reflect the facts before him. thank you, mr. chairman. i am deeply honored to appear before you. i'm deeply honored to have been nominated for a position on the supreme court and i am humbled to have been nominated for the seat that is now held by justice o'connor. justice o'connor has been a pioneer and her dedicated service on the supreme court will never be forgotten in the people of the country certainly owe her a great debt for the survey she has provided. i am very thankful for the president for nominating me and i'm also thankful to the members of this committee and many other senators who took time from their busy schedules to meet with me. that was a great honor for me and i appreciate all of the kurdish youth that were extended to me during those visits. i want t

alito: more evidence than what? mr. gornstein: so the most important would be a conflict with redistricting principles. if you could establish that and it affected a substantial number of voters, i think you could make a case. mr. alito: and what if they said well were at 53, we have a 55% floor and we want to bring this up to 55. we can do that by drawing it district that's more compact than it was before. mr. gornstein: ordinarily speaking will be very difficult without showing redistricting principles but there's no hard and fast rule. what would be a case in which that might be possible? mr. gornstein: we have two examples in our brief and in --t of the cases are various are variations of those. the first relies on -- the first relies on various map makers. thousands ofens of predominantly white voters, tens of thousands of predominantly minority voters moved in, and a to hitr says i did that the target, a finding of racial predominance could be made even if the district was compact. the second example from the brie

>> justice alito, no. our rule involves all of the conduct occurring on the united states side.i acknowledge a w, s justices breyer said would be nice for a second but more important the border patrol is 44,000 strong along southwest border and the only interact with mexican nationals. we had ten shootings across the border. so that we might get the w, it will at least not turn off the constitution. >> well, your will would be the same if this was a first time it happened, it was one person any of the facts were the same, right? >> my rule might be the same but my response to the question wouldn't have as much meat on it because we are here after many the shootings have occurred. we are here because the interaction of the border patrol in this area, the government has taken the position that on the border of the constitution turns off if the deadly force goes across the border. >> and enter your question. it has been argued that the constitution is only for people who are within the united states. therefore, an alien injured abroad has no fourth or fifth amendment rights. how do

justice alito likes to review petitions under his own standards.emembered he was in the cert pool for a while and he got his feet under him and decided what he wanted to do. i do not know if he had a particular plan. i am sure we will find out. i also wouldn't be surprised if you change your mind on that every time. on criminal law that jurisprudence, i think there are a number of cases where, if the losses the defendant gets to win, the defendant gets to win and that is the end of it. , like justice scalia. there are cases with a rigorous textual approach and that reflects the approach that scalia had. thinghink the important to know about that, justice jackson was the attorney general and he took the job of the judge seriously. he was an advocate and he switched to being a neutral decision-maker. this judge is similar, in that sense. having been a senior official in the justice department, he looks at the law for what it is. he has spoken a bit about overcriminalization on the judicial system. >> if i can add something, if he took something from

>> justice alito, no. so our rule involves all of the conduct occurring on the united states side and i acknowledge a w, as justice breyer said, would be fleiss for our side but more importantly, the border patrol is 44,000 strong along our southwest border and only interact with mexican nationals. we've had ten shootings across the border. though we might get the w at will at least not turn off the constitution. >> mr. hilliard, your rule would be the same if this was the first time it happened. if it was one person and the other facts were the same. right? >> my rule may be the same but my response to the question wouldn't have as much meat on it because we're here after many of these shootings that occurred and we're here because the interaction of the border patrol in this area, the government has taken the position that on border, the constitution turns off if the deadly force goes across the border. >> an anterior question. it has been argued that the constitution is only for people who are within th

judge alito has been confirmed to the third circuit court of appeals and also served as u.s. attorney in new jersey. at the confirmation hearing justice alito was introduced by the former new jersey republican governor christine todd whitman. >> like other americans, i've read many articles taken throughout the career chinese and to discern how he might decide on issues likely to appear before the supreme court that he would confront as a justice. i have examined the record. in the final analysis, my decision to support the charge for this positiojudgefor this pd on whether i agree with him on a particular issue or set of issues or on his conformity with any particular ideology. in fact while we may agree on some political issues i know there are others we disagree. nevertheless, one's agreement or disagreement on the political question is after all irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the judge should serve as an associate justice in the court. the role isn't to rule based on the justices personal persuasions but rather persuasive arguments grounded on the fact presente

samuel alito, 2006. sonia sotomayor, 2009. and elena kagan in 2010. watch thursday at 8:00 p.m. astern on c-span2. earlier today the justice department announced charges were being brought against four people, including two russian intelligence officers, for the 2014 hacking of 500 million yahoo accounts. his is 25 minutes. >> good morning, thank you for being here today. i'm mary mccord, acting director for the division of the department of jus tuss. with me, executive assistant director paul bayne, us district attorney for the district of california, and the national rector of affairs. we're here t announce a major law enrcent action related to one of the largest data breaches in rites history. we're the defendants include two officers of the russian federal security service, an agescy of the russian federation and two criminal hackers with whom they conspired to accomplish these intrusions. demetry -- both f.s.c. officers protected, directed, facilitated and paid criminal hackers to collect information through computer intrusions in the united states and elsewhere. they worke

. >> i ask these questions because there were -- both justice alito -- judge alito and judge roberts answered some precedent questions. and are you saying there are no precedent questions you could answer? >> well, i'm happy to seychellesby say shelby is a precedent. what its precedent reach will be remains to be seen. as i read it the decision left room for congress to legislate in this area if it wishes to make new findings and to express a new possible regime for section four and section five coverage. and that possibility is alive and could yield further litigation, undoubtedly would. >> you have been critical of class actions. and justice scalia in ledbetter case of walmart, duke's case, made more difficult, i believe, for americans to have a day in court. would you have joined justice scalia's decision on walmart? i just -- >> senator, i would tell you that my record on class actions, i think, will reflect, if you look. and i know you have. i represented class actions. i represented people fighting class actions. i've ruled against class actions and i've ruled for class actionn

the political analysis of his appellate court ruling suggest he will be with samuel alito, perhaps to the right a bit of chiechief justice roberts. in the seat scalia would have been, who he's assigned to fill. >> rose: does he remind you of scalia. >> no, scalia glor idea in being provocative off and on the bench, especially in his later years. gorsuch is tempered and composed and has an air about him. but in view of the laws and interpreting the constitution, i think there is resemblance. >> rose: how does he resemble heros of his like jnl jackson. >> he would argue he believes in restraint or mod city and as a supreme court justice he would argue go out and grab the issues to decide if they're not in front of him. i think it is true as an appellate court judge he has tried to decide cases on narrow ground, so if he follows that path that would indicate the judicial restraint. >> rose: white was another here. >> a former football hero. >> rose: appointed by president kennedy. >> right. and these are favorite past justices for gorsuch to compare himself to. they're not mightily conse

review alito likes to all of the petitions under his standards. that was not true in the first year he was on the court. while in the pool for a and he got his feet under him and decided what he wanted to do. i do not know if the judge has a plan. surprised ifnot be they change their mind. i think that there are a number of cases where, like just the -- like justice scalia, if they get the win, that is the end of it. where the judge has taken a textual approach to opinionste and these reflect that kind of approach with justice scalia. >> the important thing to know is that justice jackson was talking but the role of the justice department. people look at justice jackson race similarsuch points, having been a senior official. he looks at the law for what it he has spoken a bit about partiesminalization for who are trying to govern conduct. it ifi can add something, he took something, that relates to criminal cases and he has indoor miss respect for the department of justice and high -- ctations for the as was alluded to, there is this writing style

and each of the four last judges, two by president bush, alito and roberts, two by president obama, kagan and sotomayor, met that 60-vote standard. the bottom line is when we democrats had a chance to change the rules, we didn't change it for supreme court for that very reason. i would say to my republican friends and to the country, if you don't think the candidate can get -- if the candidate can't get 60 votes, the nominee can't get 60 votes, you don't change the rules. you change the candidate. one final point. mitch mcconnell has -- it's in his hands whether to change the rules. not ours. he doesn't come to this court with clean hands. he delayed merrick garland for a year, year and a half. if they want to change the rules, it would be bad for the country, bad for the congress. we didn't do it. it would be their loss. a lot of republicans don't want to change the rules. i'm not so sure it's a given. >> you said it would be unseemly to approve judge gorsuch as long as the fbi investigation is going on into the russian interference in the election. that could take years. >> we didn't sa

apparently justice clarence thomas and samuel alito are not planning to attend.hat's not unusual, that's past practice. it's unusual justice ginsburg won't be there tonight and we'll read into that what we may but that will be something to watch for when we see the justices of the supreme court filing. >> if previews hold, we'll have a mention of justice scalia. his widow is in the chamber and we're anticipating the president to recognize her and touch on his life. justice scalia in his life never liked coming to these and for the last years of his life just stayed home. he thought they were pep rallies and he did not think it was the business of a supreme court justice to attend. >> and that tradition continued from clarence thomas and samuel alito. >> look at that. a former congressman from florida. who. >> who's that guy? >> one of the things we will see tonight, it happens every time, is that when either both sides of the chamber or one side of the chamber is standing up and raucously applauding, no matter what sells happening in the room -- you can see kamal

review alito likes to petitions under his own standard. certembered he was in the pool for a while and he got his feet under him and decided what he wanted to do. i do not know if he had a particular plan. i am sure we will find out. on criminal law that jurisprudence, i think there are a number of cases where, if the wines the defendant gets to ande defendant gets to win that is the end of it. there are cases with a rigorous textual approach and that reflects the approach that scalia had. jackson was the therney general and he took job of the judge seriously. he was an advocate and he switched to being a neutral decision-maker. this judge is similar, in that sense. official ina senior the justice department, he looks at the law for what it is. for has enormous respect the department of justice and expectations of their behavior known to get a little hot under the collar, if the government appeared to be cutting corners in a criminal case. in the line of justice jackson, there is an understanding with the law requires and this overcriminal

justice alito likes to review petitions under his own standard. but that was not true the first year he was in. i remembered he was in the cert pool for a while and he got his feet under him and decided what he wanted to do. i do not know if he had a particular plan. i am sure we will find out. i would not be surprised if you can change her mind about that overtime. -- if you could change your mind about that over time. on criminal law that jurisprudence, i think there are a number of cases where, if the losses the defendant gets to win, the defendant gets to win and that is the end of it. there are certain cases where the judge has taken a pretty rigorous textual approach and that reflects the approach that scalia had. >> justice jackson was the attorney before he was nominated to the bench. he took on the role of judge very seriously. he was an advocate and he switched to being a neutral decision-maker. judge gorsuch is very similar. having been a senior official of the justice department does not come with baggage. he looks at the law for what

kagan got 60 votes, sotomayor got 60 votes, roberts got 60 votes and alito on a filibuster motion gottes. everyone should get 60 votes. and by the way, so my other point which i will make to my colleagues and have made and if a judge can't get 60 votes, a nominee, you don't change the rules, you change the judge. change the nominee. >> let me ask you one last question about the trump russia situation. obviously we're all wondering where these investigations are going to go there's investigations at the fbi, we have been told this week that there are investigations through the criminal division of the treasury department, in terms of the financial side of this. we also know there are congressional investigations, the intelligence committee in the house and senate. as the security agencies and intelligence agencies brief those investigators on what's going on with the question of collusion with the trump campaign and russia do you get the same briefings that the intelligence committee gets because you're the leader? >> i'm part of the so-called gang of eight. i get more classified infor

, justices roberts, and alito and kennedy did to the same question. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator from idaho. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge gorsuch, first of all i want to thank you for preparing yourself for this opportunity and for this service to the united states. you have acquitted yourself very well today. in fact, i'm very impressed with your knowledge of the case and your ability to understand and articulate your positions on the issues. i have a couple of tough questions for you first. is it true that you have been endorsed by john elway? >> you know, senator, a couple of things have made my day recently. hearing that was definitely one of them. in colorado, where i come from, that's big stuff. >> well, it is. and some of us westerners who don't have a pro team in our state kind of agree with that as well. >> senator, i tell you, what meant as much to me, though, was an article i saw not too long ago, someone put in front of me from the albuquerque journal. and it quoted two lawyers who appeared in front of me all the time. one is a

alito and judge roberts answered some precedent questions. and are you saying there are no press didn't questicedent quest answer? >> i'm happy to say shelby is a precedent of the united states supreme court. it's a recent one. it's a controversial one. i staunderstand that. what its precedence reach will prove to be remains to be seen. as i read it, the decision left room for congress to legislate in this area if it wishes to make new findings and toes press a new possible regime for section 4 and section 5 coverage. and that possibility is live and could yield further litigation, undoubtedly would. >> you've been critical of class actions and justice scalia in l ledbedder, i believe -- would you join i would tell you my reflection on that i represented class actions. i represented people class actions. i've ruled against class actions and i've ruled for class actions and in cass each it depend on the fat the most recent class action case that and and thos folks filed a class action for damage to their property and it took 25 years for that

months later, the road was much rougher for justice alito. he ultimately made it through 58-42. justice sotomayor war was confirmed with nine g.o.p. votes and five g.o.p. senators voted in favor of justice kagan. republicans hold 52 senate seat seats. democrat leadership is increasingly suggesting it will enforce a procedural hurdle that will require 60 votes. will the g.o.p. invoke the nuclear option and dropped the threshold of 51? >> we will do what's necessary to conform judge gorsuch. >> democrats say not so fast. senator warren tweeting "a lifetime appointment to the supreme court from a president whose campaign is under investigation." >> it is unseemly to be moving forward so fast on confirming a supreme court justice with a lifetime appointment while the big gray cloud of an fbi investigation hangs over the presidency. >> nine senators who joined the effort to filibuster justice alito are still in the senate. chuck schumer and dianne feinstein. the last effort to block or filibuster someone was launched by then senator john kerry with support from joe biden, hillary cli

samuel alito was confirmed 58-42. clarence thomas was confirmed 52-48.ean times you need 60 votes as of the other party filibusters and there has never, in the history of the republican come up in a filibuster of an associate justice for the supreme court. the democrats would be doing something unprecedented in terms of filibustering judge gorsuch. this attachment to 60 votes and super majority and all of the rest of it is kind of unique because in 2013, they didn't care so much about that. they were very happy to invoke the nuclear option for live tempo to the federal bench of the circuit and district level. the reason for that, they were trying to help barack obama stack the course of liberal judges who couldn't be the 60 vote threshold. back then, 60 votes wasn't important. today, it is sacrosanct. >> martha: what do you make of ted cruz said in that introduction? so many of the senators voted in favor of judge gorsuch on the federal appeals court. why would they vote for him then and then, as chuck schumer says, find him so reprehensible and not qual

guidance from congress is helpful in that regard and justice alito wrote a separate opinion on this new deal with technologies precisely because of the challenge of trying to address the issue of new technologies we haven't seen yet. sec >> we think we have it balanced and then new technology comes and upset at. let me continue on talking about the role. i would like to introduce intoen the record the college of law school concluded justices should be willing to work hard to law understand the technology and think critically about the legal concept. the record suggests no reason they are up for the task and so this makes us all feel better up i'm sure.r, it's been brought up a number ot times. but let me talk about the relationship to technologies here if the judges take her to policy decisions owned executive agencies, those depend on the policies of the agencies is that right?cies >> if they write regulations on that and they differ depends on the agencies more than it does congress. >> that sounds like a reasonable conclusion.t we will have more consistent policy than the privacy's -

there is a long presumption of justice alito, which the sourt set applies to all statute. we think our standard comes from the text. but there is no cannon but significance or equality -- >> what is the difference -- >> i think it is quite large. if the court is to ask if there is some benefit, as i was saying to justice ginsburg in my hypothetical, has the school district benefitted. but once we get beyond that to significant, the court has to ask both. was there some benefit. and was that benefit significant. i can imagine a variety of -- >> it didn't just say some benefit. it said that benefit would normally allow a student with a disability to keep up with his peers in a different grade. now as soon as they say that, you appreciate that you are dealing with more than just some benefit. that's a significant benefit. significant -- significant, meaningful, whatever. more than simply de minimis. it suggests that you can't just look at something and say, here, that was helpful. because the whole package has to be helpful enough to allow the them to keep up with their peers

justice alito passed away in february, there had already been three primaries. the campaign season in my view was afoot. this is what senator reid said in may 2005. the duties of united states senator set forth in the constitution of the united states, nowhere in that document does it say the senate has a duty to give residential nominee a vote. this is senator schumer. the last july, 2007. we should reverse the presumption of confirmation, we should not confirm any nominee to the supreme court, except an extra ordinary circumstances. that was the last year, president bush's last term. to my democratic colleagues, on november 21st, 2013, you decided when you are in charge of this body by a 52 heaven 48 vote to change the rules of united states senate, the united states executive branch and appointments and all the judges below that of the supreme court. i'm not going to ask you whether you think that was fair or not, because that's not your job. i will say to the public, i thought it was incredulously unfair. i thought it was a power grab by our democratic colle

judge alito got more when there was attempted filibuster. they should have to meet the same bar, not change the rules to change it. >> that's just a precedent. >> of course. there's no rule now. they could change the rules anyway they want. >> does someone have to file a notice. >> we believe, in the 60 vote threshold. that's why we are filing a motion. that's allowed in the rules right now. >> okay, last question. >> i interrupted the second half. >> very briefly on another subject. >> out, another subject. >> will then you don't get to ask - the president looked out on the crowd and said hello chuck, are you going to work with him on healthcare. >> we have sent him a letter today that says we want to work with you on healthcare. make sure that you don't undermined the aca because you're angry or at a vengeance because if you undermine our healthcare system you're hurting american. that's not being a president or leading. secondly we said, this idea of repeal has proven not to work. trump care got about 17 popularity on the pole right befor

the political science analysis of his appellate court rulings suggest he will be with alito and perhapso the right of roberts, in the place that scalia would have been in. and of course, this is scalia's former seat that gorsuch is being asked to fill. charlie: does he remind you of scalia in any way? emily: temperamentally, no. they are quite a contrast. scalia was provocative off in on the bench and gorsuch is gentle. -- seems very tempered, compose, has a gentle air about him. in terms of their view of the law and there quite strict views quite strict views of interpreting the constitution. i think there is a resemblance. charlie: how does he resemble justice jackson? emily: he would argue that he believes in judicial restraint or modesty, which means he won't , as a supreme court justice, go out and grabbed the keys used to decide if they are not right in front of him. and it is true that as an appellate judge, he has looked at narrow grounds. if he follows that path, it would illustrate the kind of judicial restraint he talks about. charlie: justice white was another hero. emily: a