but judge garland was denied a hearing and a vote. mr. president, our constitution, the one that every member of this great deliberative body has sworn an oath to upheld standing right over there, right over there requires the united states senate to provide its advice and consent to supreme court nomin nominees. over the years a lot of questions, what does advice and consent entail? well, judge garland was denied a hearing and a vote. a good man, i think an extraordinary man was treated badly, badly. and so is our constitution. i believe the unprecedented obstruction our republican colleagues mounted last year against judge garland was a shameful chapter for the united states senate. judge garland, a consensus builder, one of those qualified judges in our country, waited 293 days for a hearing and a vote that ultimately never came. i'm still deeply troubled by the 293 wasted days and i am still deeply troubled by how judge garland was treated. i believe judge garland still deserves a hearing and he still deserves a vote. while i do not b

why is the garland attack so significant? on the homeland. >> cooper: attacks in the united states? >> hughes: attacks in the united states. these low-level attacks by ones and twos of people who are drawn to the ideology and decide to act. you got to make sense of it all. so what you do is you bring it all together and put it on a board and say who's connected to who. hughes maps out isis' online tentacles into the united states. >> hughes: so you have the two attackers, soofi and simpson. they're also talking to mohammed miski, who's an isis recruiter in somalia. >> cooper: this is somebody in somalia who they're talking to online... >> hughes: uh-huh. yep. through an encrypted app, surespot. they're also talking to junaid hussein. >> cooper: and he's in raqqa? >> hughes: he's in raqqa. >> cooper: raqqa is isis's stronghold in syria. hughes calls junaid hussain an" isis rock star," a british citizen, who communicated online with english-speaking recruits worldwide. he was killed in a u.s. drone strike a year and a half ago.

. >> so garland was qualified. you're not saying gorsuch is not unqualified, you're saying that's not the only criteria we're looking at anymore. what is the other criteria we should be looking at. >> i don't think any of us is going to say that he doesn't have an impressive resume in terms of credentials. obviously that's true. i think that what we're talking about a little bit more in the beginning of this discussion about what we're looking for in a judge in some ways comes into play. i want a judge or justice to be someone who is going to be faith ful to the law and to the constitution and not be there to pursue a particular political agenda. i think that's true whether it's a justice who is appointed by a democratic president or a republican president. i understand that elections have consequences so there is going to be perhaps if there's a conservative president and puts up someone who is a more conservative justice, it might not be exactly the person that i as a progressive might want to put forth, but you

well, until judge garland. according to the highly respected website goddess blog, we read these words. the historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. that's right off the blog. but judge garland was denied a hearing and a vote. in fact, during the 1988 presidential election year, justice anthony kennedy was confirmed by the senate, not 51-49. not 60-40. 97-0. 97-0. but judge garland was denied a hearing and a vote. mr. president, our constitution, the one that every member of this great deliberative body has sworn an oath to upheld standing right over there, right over there requires the united states senate to provide its advice and consent to supreme court nomin nominees. over the years a lot of questions, what does advice and consent entail? well, judge garland was denied a hearing and a vote. a good man, i think an extraordinary man

. >> so garland is qualified.ou're saying that's not the only criteria were looking at anymore. what are other criteria we should be looking? >> i think is certainly well credentialed. i don't think any of us are going to say he doesn't have an impressive resume in terms of credentials. of course that is true. but we talked about more in the beginning discussion about what we look for in a judge in some ways comes into play. i want a judge or justice to be someone who's going to be faithful to the law into the constitution and not be there to pursue particular political agenda. that is true whether it's the justices appointed bdemocratic presidents or republican president. i understand that elections have consequences and so there's going to be perhaps if there is a conservative president and puts up something his more conservative justice, and may not be exactly the person that i is a progressive might want to put forth. you still, i believe, always want to make sure that particular nominee is someone who follow

you talk about merrick garland. why, if the republicans were to go to the nuclear option, would that not be interpreted as what happened in 2013 and you said this is them doing it, extracting revenge, they're saying they're extracting revenge? senator schumer: because we deliberately -- we were free actors in 2013. like it or not, we changed the rules for lower court judges. there were scores and scores of them held up for months and months and years and years. we made a deliberate decision based on the merits that the preme court is too important to go to a 51-vote situation. we made a decision that you should get 60 votes on such an important -- on such an important position. so there would be some bipartisanship and some mainstream. and president trump didn't go to the mainstream. he didn't consult democrats. he didn't consult anyone but the heritage foundation. he didn't even consult mainstream or moderate republicans. reporter: you rue the day here that you hoist yourself with your own guitar? senator schumer:

should we think about judge gorsuch differently in light of what happened to judge garland?> thank you, adam. first, before i get to those two questions which are great, i just want to thank everyone for being here and thank the sponsors for inviting me. i spent two wonderful years as georgetown as a teaching fellow supervising attorney, so it's really great to be back. i think the answer to your first question about did what happened to judge, chief judge merrick garland violate constitutional norms or other institutional norms, absolutely. you know, i think there are, as kristine said, important reasons to consider the supreme court at least aspirationally above politics. you know, chief justice roberts has repeatedly said that he doesn't consider the court to do their work as democrats and republicans, but rather, as justices who surely have their ideologies, but they don't view themselves as political in the same way, and it's detrimental to the court to view them in the aim way. i certainly agree with that. we certainly don't want them to, and i agree with chief justice

and they bought the ads against marek garland. now they are -- merrick garland. now they are buying the ads to judge gorsuch targeted to have maximum political impact. now, this fact would be appalling enough but the other facts here are that judge gorsuch evaded many of the most pertinent and important questions during this hearing. he did so after the president who nominated him established a litmus test saying that he -- is nominee would automatically reverse roe v. wade, he, the president, outsourced his selection process to the heritage foundation and to other similar hard right conservative groups that prepared lifts for him, screened them and advised him. so the question is -- who is behind these ads? because it is not only the judicial crisis network and those groups. conservative k of donors who are operating to buy american justice. let's be clear. president trump wasn't just consulting these outside groups. he was outsourcing this election process and -- this selection process and we want to know who is providing the funds that in effect are the critic

last year the garland nomination. to answer one of your questions i do think the experience of last year, which included meric garland, but there were many other unique things about what happened with regard to the process, i do think that is going to have an impact on how people consider supreme court nominees going forward. it really was something that i never would have predicted. i've worked for the senator for more than 14 years and i think even he, the most senior senator serving in the u.s. senate was surprised at all the different things that happened in 2016, one of which was the majority leader announcing that no consideration would be given to the president's nominee to the supreme court. so of the four that went through, there were some unpredictable moments. i wouldn't say that any supreme court process is necessarily predictable. these are real people who have interesting background. there's a lot of attention and more and more so there's a lot of money that gets involved in groups for and against. each

i asked you about merrick garland. i asked you about the nominations talked about, one of the first calls you placed was to chief judge garland, and you said to me, i think the world of merrick garland. i asked you a couple times if you are bothered by the way the senate treated merrick garland who you clearly have a great deal of respect for. you said something to the effect of, senator, i try to stay away from politics. now, you've been on the bench for ten years, so, that sounded fair to me and i decided to leave well enough alone so i moved on to another topic. but your relationship with politics came up again yesterday, my good colleague senator lee, lamented the extent to which the confirmation process has become political and suggested that you and other nominees are not equipped to navigate that process because confirmation politics are, in his words, quote, still a little foreign to you, or still quite unfamiliar to you. but it turns out that's not really entirely accurate. after you were nominated, this commi

he blocks merrick garland for over a year. we would need to be here if judge garland was given a fair consideration. that's why we are here today not mr finally on the wall mr. president a place where there may be more agreement between some of us then on judge garland, last night we learned the trump administration will be seeking deep cuts to critical domestic programs in order to pay for a border wall. the administration is asking the american taxpayer to cover the a cost of that wall and effect and certainly expensive but mexico was supposed to pay for it and m he's cutting programs that are vital to the middle class in order to get that done. they want to cut the new s.t.a.r.t. transportation program, tiger grants. these are the life led of our roads and tunnel and bridge building efforts. build a wall or repair and rebuild a bridge or tunnel or road in your community? what's the choice? they want to cut off funding for cancer research to pay for thept wall. how many americans would support that decision? they want to cut

. >> trevor: merrick garland was meant to be in that seat.picked by a president who had every right to pick him. republicans came out and said, we can't pick him because obama is a lame duck, which was insane. but gorsuch taking this job, what does that mean for the supreme court as an institution going forward? >> well, i want to just start by telling you that senator al franken directly asked him what he thinks about the politicization of garland and whether he thinks garland is mistreated and it wouldn't surprise you at all to hear gorsuch couldn't talk about that. ( laughter ) we don't know what he thinks. we know that this is unperes centd. we've had a vacancy more than a year. justice scalia died february, and obama tapped someone to replace him. the republicans on the senate said no hearing, no vote, not even courtesy hearing with merrick garland because president obama doesn't get to pick someone in his third year by some metric that we still don't know what that rule is but it's like a thing now. >> trevor: yeah. >> so that became th

merrick garland experienced the second reason why some nominees fail, senate opposition. they didn't give him a hearing or voted him down, just declared his nomination doa. that was unusual as we reported today, but both parties have drawn lines in the sand on these nominations. democrats united against reagan's nomination of robert bork, a fight that changed the process forever. while many nominees are obscure when picked, bork was known. democrats viewed the potential promotion as the last thing bork deserved. liberal ted kennedy led the party to denounce him the day he was announced. >> the man who fired archibald cox does not deserve to sit on the supreme court of the united states. robert bork's america is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens doors and midnight raids, and schoolchildren would not be taught about evolution. writers and artists would be censured at the whim of government and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of mi

last year, judge merck garland, garland never even getting a hearing. senator pat l leahy, he called that a stain on the 200-year history of the senate judiciary committee. >> today marks the first time the senate judiciary committee has met publicly to take action on a supreme court vacancy that resulted from justice scalia's death 134 months ago. this is one of the greatest stains on the 200 year history of this committee. >> pat leahy, thanks for taking a few minutes. you say this unprecedented obstruction as you call it, merck garland not even getting a hearing, donald trump winning the election putting his own nominee up. you say that's a stain on the committee's history. does that mean there is no chance you could be persuaded to vote for this nomination? >> i have a lot of questions i'm going to ask judge gorsuch. i'll make up my mind based on that. i wanted to state a fact though that the republican leadership decided to ignore the constitution which says that we must advise and consent. we can always vote no. advise and consent a presidential n

merrick garland was widely regarded as a mainstream moderate nominee. however, president trump repeatedly promised to appoint someone in the mold of justice scalia, and said that the nomination of judge gorsuch illustrates he's a man of his word. for those of us on this side, our job is not to theoretically evaluate this or that legal doctrine, or to review judge gorsuch's record in a vacuum. our job is to determine whether judge gorsuch is a reasonable, mainstream conservative, or is he not. our job is to assess how this nominees and decisions will impact the american people and whether he will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all americans. not just the wealthy and the powerful. we hold these hearings not because court precedent and stare decisis are something average americans worry about. we hold these hearings because the united states supreme court has the final word on hundreds of issues that impact our daily lives. the supreme court has the final say on whether a woman will continue to have control over her own body, or whether dec

and it's not judge merrick garland. it's one of the most extraordinarily talented and capable people that we could possibly have going to the supreme court. so i hope that this nomination hearing focuses on the one person before us who will go, and i believe will fill the sprinkler. i consider one of the most important jobs that i have as your senator in the two years i've been here. nothing rises to the level of imports of your nomination and the composition of the supreme court. they asked -- outlast for life, many president and many senators began to fix all americans and there will be judgment that you will render that will last for decades. i have no doubt that you have the qualifications. senator graham, i have associate myself with senator grams comments. the only reason i didn't pursue your academic line of schools main had to do with admission requirements, but i appreciate the hard work that you did academically i appreciate the hard work that you did as a litigator and the work that you're done as a judge. i

. >> judge garland. >> chief judge merrick garland. >> reporter: democratic senators like patrick leahy still seething that republicans blocked president obama's nomination a year ago this week of judge merrick garland. >> it was totally unprecedented in our country's whole history. >> reporter: they also took aim at president trump and questioned gorsuch's commitment to judicial independence. connecticut's richard blumenthal. >> the possibility of the supreme court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation. >> reporter: but republican senators said the hearing was not about judge garland or the president. north carolina's thom tillis. i hope this nomination hearing will focus on the one person here before us who i hope will go on to fill the supreme court. >> reporter: democrats are promising a judge gorsuch's record with a focus on workers' right, civil liberties and women's rights. he will be in this hot seat for about ten hours tomorrow, scott, and again on wednesday. >> pelley: jan crawford for us tonight. jan, thank you. in breaking news thi

first call you placed was to chief judge garland. you said to me, i think the world of merrick garland. i asked you a couple of times if you bothered by the way senate treated merrick garland. you have a great deal of respect for. you said something to the effect, senator i tried to stay away from politics. you've been on the bench for 10 years. i decided to leave well enough alone. i moved on to another topic. your relationship with split -- politics came up again yesterday. good colleague senator lee, to which the confirmation process has become political and suggested that you and other nominees are not equipped to navigate that process because confirmation politics are in his words, quote, still a little foreign to you. or still quite unfamiliar to you. it turns out that's not really entirely accurate. after you were nominated this committee made a formal request for dot-coms relating to your previous nomination and to your time at the department of justice. this is standard procedure. those documents includes e-mails back and fo

why didn't garland get the hearings? we wish it was garland. democrats wish it was garland. if you have someone nominated then this is a moderate and i think that's why democrats did support him in the first place. >> do the democrats filibuster because they're angry about merrick garland? >> i sure hope they do. i'd like to see the reed rule applied to the next nominee. neil gorsuch is going to glide through. this so impressive. so in command of the facts and his temperament is so great. he reminds me of some of the top flight judges i've appeared for in front of the 9th circuit. >> kurt, hang on, why the question has been put forward on our network today, why would the democrats risk doing filibuster now and blowing credibility on that? they are already undercut themselves on certain issues when it comes to nearly gorsuch. you heard it in the hearings today when they have another replacement they would have to deal with on the supreme court. why not filibuster that? >> it's a strategically terrible idea for them to filibuster. they would have to be operating under a motion

i asked you about merrick garland. read somewhere, after you accepted the nomination one of the first calls youd was to chief judge garland, and you said to me, i think the world of merrick garland. i asked you a couple times, if you are bothered by the way the senate treated merrick garland, who you clearly have a great deal of respect for. you said something to the effect of senator, i try to stay away from politics. now you had been on the bench for 10 years, so that sounded fair to me are and i decided to leave well enough alone. i moved on to another topic but your relationship with politics came up again yesterday. my good colleague senator lee, lamented the extent to which the confirmation process has become political and suggested that you and other nominees are not equipped to navigate that process because confirmmation politics are in his words, quote, still a little foreign to you. or still quite unfamiliar to you turns out that is not really entirely accurate. after you were nominated this committee made a

. >> the chief judge, merrick garland. >> chief judge merrick garland. >> reporter: democratic senatorsike patrick leahy are still seething that republicans blocked president obama's nomination of judge merrick garland. >> it was totally unprecedented in our country's whole history. >> reporter: they also took aim at president trump and questioned gorsuch's commitment to judicial independence, connecticut's richard blumenthal. >> the possibility of the supreme court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation. >> reporter: but republican senators said the hearing was not about judge garland or the president north carolina's thom tillis. >> i hope the nomination hearing focuses on one person before us who will go on, i believe, to full fill the supreme court. >>> oil is expected to keep on moving through the dakota access pipeline this week. two have battled the pipeline for months arguing the pipeline is a threat to their water supply. in a court order filed yesterday said there have been coordinated attacks along the line. >>> new york city police

. >> how do you process merrick garland in all this? certainly a qualified jurist, someone the republican leader mitch mcconnell said just flatly would not be considered. what do you do about that? >> i think that was a very dark moment in how congress approaches these vacancies. i totally disagree with mitch mcconnell, of course. in fact, some of the people who came out and testified for judge gorsuch said that judge garland was a fantastic jurist and he would have made a wonderful supreme court justice. sadly, that didn't happen, but we are giving judge gorsuch the hearing that judge garland never received from the republicans. >> so assuming you are a no vote along with most if not all of your fellow democrats -- >> brian, i'm not there yet. we still have two more days of hearings. i would like to get some straight answers to the question that i have that have to do with where is he on reproductive rights, a woman's right to choose. i'd like to get into some voting rights issues, union issues. i still have a number of questions that

they deserve an up or down vote on the floor. >> but republicans blocked that vote from garland theren the senate floor. the question facing the senate now after all of this is will the us unprecedented gop strategy, it's about politics. have democrats learned anything from mitch mcconnell's obstruction or trump's aggression? that if you're not on offense, you're probably losing. if you participate in your own p uchpunking. donald rumsfeld said, "weakness is provocative." that's the argument some liberals are pushing on republicans right now. "the senate should refuse to confirm anyone president trump nominates to the supreme court until trump renominates merrick garland." here's another plea to democrats about all of this. "as a criminal defense attorney i know in criminal law the defendant who knowingly receives stolen property is as guilty as the defendant who stole it and democrats filibuster this choice and fight with every fiber of their being or guilty of letting the republicans get away with stealing a supreme court seat." so are the dems listening? chuck schumer is not callin

. >> judge garland. >> chief judge merrick garland. >> reporter: democratic senators like patrick leahy are still seething that republicans blocked president obama's nomination a year ago this week of judge merrick garland. >> it was totally unprecedented in our country's whole history. >> reporter: they also took aim at president trump and questioned gorsuch's commitment to judicial independence. connecticut's richard blumenthal. >> the possibility of the supreme court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation. >> reporter: but republican senators said the hearing was not about judge garland or the president. north carolina's tom tillis. >> i hope that this nomination hearing focuses on the one person here before us who i hope will go on to fill the supreme court. >> reporter: democrats are promising a thorough review of judge gorsuch's record with focus on workers' rights, civil liberties and women's rights. he will be in this hot seat about ten hours tomorrow, scott, and again on wednesday. >> jan crawford, thanks. >>> in breaking news this eve

jung garland was a fine man. i'm sure i would have voted for him. at the time his nomination came about, we were in the middle of selecting a new president. we were in the last year of president obama himself rife zoo june there was a suggestion that maybe one of the judges on the proper kprp of -- it would be our conclusion that once the political season isnd way and it is, action on a sport nominations until after the lks cam pan is off. if sfmt. >> if bush dp i would skpp that wasio bide i don't know, the possibility of a can do it's a wam tap fs that passed away in february. it had own been three trial riss. this is in. >> the duties of the united states senator set forth in the stuns of the united states in. we should not confirm any bush to the nominee except during extra flich that was president bush's last turn. it my democratic kolprop prpthey changed rules for the nominat n nominationall and all of that it n becauses that not favor nrmt i thought it was a power grab by our democrat being colleagues that will change the nature of the judici

the -- merit garland and the particular nominee. i understand he's giving a great job today but i haven't seen a single democrat other than the one that you've observed that they were preparing to vote for cloture or to vote for him. i am now left with the question, judge can achieve the votes in the senate, could any judge appointed by a republican president be approved with 60 or more votes in the senate. i can only take you back to the first years of clinton. ginsburg and breyer were confirmed without cloture. without cloture, apples and apples, beginning of the term. if they don't find him acceptable or they've taken the position that the vacancy should never be filled at all? last year they were complaining about being a vacancy for roughly a year. so we will see how it developed the week after next and we will confirm before we leave for recess. the democrats haven't been able to pla lay it well and the judgs acquitted himself extraordinarily well at the hearings and i think that the american people have concluded she is a mai

i asked you about marc garland, one of the first calls you placed was to chief judge garland, and you said to me, i think the world of merck garland and i asked you a couple times if you were bothered by the way the senate treated merck garland. you said something to the effect of senator, i try to stay away from politics. now you'd been on the bench for ten years. so that sound the fair to me, and i decided to leave well enough alone. and i moved on to another topic. but your relationship with politics came up again yesterday, my good colleague senator elemented the extent as become political and suggested that you and other nominees are not equipped to navigate that process because confirmation politics are in his words, quote, still a little foreign to you. are still quite unfamiliar to you. it turns out that's not really entirely accurate. after you were nominated this committee made a formal request for documents relating to your previous nomination and to your time at the department of justice. this is standard procedure. those documents include e-mails back and forth between fo

and that is the use of dark process this nomination and against judge garland. it has been reported $7 million to sullyoney was spent judge garland and that $10 million of dark money was spent to promote judge gorsuch. that is dark money. we don't know where it came from or how much was given or whether one individual put in all $10 million. the only thing i know of that is that the n.r.a. put in $1 million. now that sends a loud signal to me and i think that the majority -- and i say this respectfully needs to consider these things. a ink that when you have nominee who won't answer a specific question -- i remember when the question was asked about plessy versus furnishing uson and said yes, it's a dark stain on america's history and senator blumenthal said do you support brown versus the board of education and he wouldn't say. w brown v. education was the te in terms of schools and fairness and desegregation and anybody that's going to be in the supreme court seems to me has to say yes, i supported it. and when we look back at other nominees, republican nomine

, fearing that garland would tip the ideological balance of the court to the left. during opening statements on monday, democratic senators repeatedly criticized their discourse it is record and took aim at the republican counterparts for refusing to take up the nomination of garland. this is democratic senator sheldon n whitehouse of rhodode islandnd. >> now, where do you fit i in? when hobby lobby was in the 10th cicircuit, you help fofor corpororation haviving religious rights over its employees health care. a record on cororba versus s hun lititigants comes in by onene ct at 21-2. for corprporations. tellllingly, big special interet in their f front groupups are spending millions of dollars in a dark money campapaign to push your confirmation. we have a predicament.t. in ordinary circumstances, you should have the benefit of the doubt b bed on your qualificatations but several things have e gone wrong a shift the benefit of the doubtbt. one, justice roberts sat in that very seat, told u us he just called balls and strikes and then letet his fivive person republi

it has been reported that $7 million of dark money was spent to sully judge garland. and that $10 million of dark money was spent to promote neil gorsuch. that is dark money. we do not know where it came from or how much was given. we don't know whether one individual put in all $10 million. the only thing i know is that the nra put in $1 million. now, that sends a loud signal to me. i think that the majority, and i say this respectfully, needs to consider these things. i think that then when you have a nominee who will not answer a specific question -- i remember when the question was asked about plessy versus ferguson and the nominee said yes, it is a dark stain on america's history. i think it was senator blumenthal that asked, do you support brown versus board of education, and he would not say. brown v. education was the vote in terms of schools and fairness and desegregation. and anybody that is going to be on the supreme court, it seems to me, has to say yes, i supported it. when i look back and we look back at other nominees, republican nominees who would say

hold a hearing for judge garland. during the campaign, donald trump vowed to appoint judges in the mold of justice scalia. after nomination, president trump said he was delivering on that promise. mike emanuel, what do the democrats have to say about judge gorsuch about today's hear something. >> we talk about how judge gorsuch was confirmed with the unanimous vote to serve on the tenth circuit court of appeals. democrats mentioned several times that judge garland was nominated by president obama. the stakes are higher this time around. >> supreme court is different. security is -- supreme court is the ultimate sort of justice in this country. >> sandra: . >> as much as you encountsered difficulty ten years ago, we now have a record and we're here to judge that record. >> a lot of mentions of judge garland and indications that democrats will perhaps ask some tougher questions because judge garland never got consideration last year when he was nominated by president obama. some republicans said did take it out or judge

and against judge garland. it's been reported that $7 million of dark money was spent to sully judge garland, and the 10 million of dark money was spent to promote neil gorsuch. that is dark money. we don't know where it came from. we don't know how much was given. we don't know whether one individual put in all $10 million. the only thing i know of that is that the nra put in a million dollars. now, that sends a loud signal to me, and i think that the majority -- and i say this respectfully -- needs to consider these things. i think that then when you have a nominee who won't answer a specific question, i remember when the question was asked about plusy versus ferguson and the nominee said, yes, it's a dark stain on america's history. then i think senatorbrooken that said do your support brown vs. of the board of ospace he wouldn't say. now, brown v. education was the vote in terms of schools and fairness and desegregation and anybody that is going to be in the supreme court, it seems to me, has to say, yes, i