just as garland's -- justice garland's was different. there was a dispute whether there was a need for another judge on the gc circuit -- d.c. circuit. compared to other court of appeals, the d.c. had a smaller caseload per judge. after an extended back-and-forth, they decided to confirm judge garland after he was nominated. .he vote was 76 ivan 23 majority of republicans supporting his nomination. let me pause to swap out my speech boxes. when you have a lecture this , and this detailed, distinguished, it takes more than one speech box. >> [laughter] beachatch: so i will swap boxes at that -- speech boxes at this point. after president clinton came president george w. bush. he appointed four judges to the d.c. circuit, john roberts, janice rogers, janice rogers brown, tom griffith, and brett kavanaugh. there confirmation experiences were rather different from president clinton's nominees. look how long president clinton's nominees had to wait. george rogers waita four months. judge totale also waited four months. judge garland had 18-mo

>> the senate is not broken but we didn't attack merrick garland brown wants to destroy him. we wanted to follow tradition which is if you have a party of it - - a senate of a different party than the president - - [indiscernible]. senator schumer said 18 months said if a vacancy occurred, they would fill it. so we followed tradition. we didn't attack a nominee. we didn't go on a search and destroy mission. i agree with senator schumer that this has been a low point in the senate. i have a disagreement with who caused the low point. democrats leaking doctor ford's name, against her desires. then try to lower the standard and say the presumption of innocence no longer applies in the united states of america. and then the mob descended on capitol hill and try to intimidate our members into opposing this good man's nomination. we stood up to the mob. we established the presumption of innocence is so important. i'm proud of my colleagues. it's an important day for the united states senate. >>chris: i have to pick up on something you send it maybe i have this wrong, but when you b

justice garlands compression process was a bit different.there was a dispute at the time of the weather was, whether it was a need for another judge on the d.c. circuit. compared of the courts of appeal, appeals, the d.c. circuit had a smaller caseload for judge after an extended back-and-forth, the senate voted to confirm judge garland 18 months after he was nominated. the vote was 76-23 with the majority of republicans supporting his nomination. i'm going to pause for a moment to swap out my speech boxes. when you have a lecture this thorough and, of course, this detailed and distinguish, it takes more than one speech box. so i'm going to swap speech boxes at this point. after president clinton came president georgia w. bush. president bush appointed for judges to the d.c. circuit. john roberts, janus rogers, janus rogers brown, excuse me, tom griffith and brett kavanaugh. there confirmation expenses were shall we say rather different from president clinton's nominees. recall how long president clinton's nominees had to wait between confir

their base was so frustrated after the merrick garland situation and they wanted to say show us what you got this time parn it left them with no choice but to stall and delay and do everything they could. >> one strategic point about going hard and strong and who's side are you on. michael avenati who came in with a late-breaking addition to the store combreep lots of democrats -- story and lots of democrats are saying he took a case with ford and turned it into a circus losing the high ground. >> was interesting to see all the way along how they dealt with the allegations because at first they kept them at arm's length and the day julie swetnic had a restatement, i had one republican aide saying america should be devastated, michael avenati brought the heat and then democrats then retreat. the challenge for democrats was their line was you should believe women. they didn't have the option to pick and choose saying we believe these two women but don't necessarily believe this woman so they were stuck with an all-or nothing situation. >> i asked about the vote. >> i tried to talk abou

let garland speak. >> you should know about minstrel shows.hat should be his area of expertise. >> i kind of cringe. >> laura: hold on, guys. garland is speaking. >> i cringe, because it is the person. i like kanye west. i don't dislike him.cr you remember the taylor swift issue.pe you never know what he is going to say. i am always on the edge waiting to hear what he says. he is the in the alternate universe. he is not the right spokesman. now conservatives are holding up this guy as thou he is speaking for all the wonderful trump is doing for black people in america. h >> laura: i don't think any one speaks for any one big group. when jesse jackson comes out and he says he represents all black people.'t i always have people say jesse jackson is an interesting guy but he doesn't speak for me. >> garland doesn't speak for me either. garland doesn't speak for me. >> laura: i get it. everybody is speaking for himself or herself. i understand that.odg all of us are trying to get too the point where individuals of any color can speak their mindf a

merrick garland is a prodigious worker by reputation. judge kavanaugh saw that and did his best to follow in his footsteps in that regard. else a had a huge output in cases. i believe 312 written opinions over his 12 years on the bench, and in addition to that, outside the court, law review articles, speeches, and many presentations to groups. he also lectures at the harvard law school. and regarding his previous experience, it also includes, as we know, a previous experience in the executive branch, both as a lawyer and as an assistant to the president. and all of this -- in all of this, by the way, he was required to undergo six separate f.b.i. checks. his qualifications have been reviewed by the american bar association, which is just onent that i looks at judicial nominees and is generally deemed to be an organization that studies records, goes into deputy in interviewing people, and they concluded that he had the top rating -- well qualified -- to serve on the supreme court. he is, as some have described, a judge's judges a real sta

for 293 days for merrick garland, respected judge in the d.c.e same court brett kavanaugh serves on. the quote is not from obama. it's from mitch mcconnell. who had 85 days into kavanaugh's process, with two sets of hearings, says too much obstruction. mcconnell trying to turn his team into the victim of obstruction. the last supreme court nominee from another party, garland, waited more than triple the amount of time that it took for mitch mcconnell to get to this point. this hypocrisy is quite blatant. >> let's let the american people decide. the senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be. >> this is a nomination that deserves to move forward, and that is precisely, mr. president, what is happening. >> i think it's safe to say there will not be hearings or voted. >> they're committed to delaying, obstructing, and resisting this nomination with everything they've got. >> one of my proudest moments is when i looked barack obama in the eye an

. >> shannon: judge garland was an owe bham a nominee. we'll weigh in live after the break. i'm ken jacobus, i'm the owner of good start packaging. we distribute environmentally-friendly packaging for restaurants. and we've grown substantially. so i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. that's right, $36,000. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. my unlimited 2% cash back is more than just a perk, it's our healthcare. can i say it? what's in your wallet? ito take care of anyct messy situations.. and put irritation in its place. and if i can get comfortable keeping this tookus safe and protected... you can get comfortable doing the same with yours. preparation h. get comfortable with it. walking a dog can add thouswalking this many?our day. that can be rough on pam's feet, knees, and lower back. that's why she wears dr. scholl's orthotics. they relieve pain and give her the comfort to move more so she can keep up w

nomination for over 300 days and when judge garland was nominated and now to tell us we are responsible for delay really is to ignore history and the reality of what has occurred because of the courage of his members three of whom have stepped up to say we will not dismiss doctor ford's allegations with the staff phone call we want an actual hearing inspired by three republican members of the senate and we thought the request wast right to know a little bit about that because i asked directly during the course of the hearing what he wanted us to do not the white house, not the senate judiciary committee leadership wanted to do what he judge kavanaugh wanted to do. if doctor ford is willing to submit her allegations then why wouldn't you judge kavanaugh? if there were no credible witnesses then why wouldn't you want a complete investigationss? but even then he refused the fbi investigation and to make it clear that he would not move forward without the fbi investigation that this fbi investigation is underway. so any delay of the week is support on the democratic side of the aisle so us

he broke the rules and made it look like the republicans had been so mean to merrick garland.t: thank you. guest: ma'am, i will respectfully disagree with your understanding of what the precedent is on these matters. over wheno precedent supreme court justices can be nominated and when they can be acted upon. we've had, in fact, justice kennedy himself confirmed in an election year. we've done it in the past. i think what you're referring to , back in 1996 senator biden, my old boss, made a statement on the floor in the summer a few months before a midterm election . there was some concern that one of the republican justices might step down at the last minute to permit republicans to fill it. senator biden said i hope republicans don't do that. that would be gaming the system. that has been interpreted by some on the republican side as some kind of binding precedent. i think that is quite a stretch to read it that way. this seat opened up not because of any easement ship -- any gamesmanship, but because justice kennedy died. under actual precedent, the court should have handle

brett kavanaugh sits with garland on the dc circuit court of appeals. collins reasoning is most democrats liked garland so why not brett cavanagh? he personified the rage over the brett kavanaugh nomination. and president obama nominated him for the high court, eventually filling that seat with neil gorsuch. the confirmation of neil gorsuch and particularly cavanagh, republican solo seat from their side and that could tip the balance of the court with conservatives. >> thank you very much. in announcing her support for brett cavanagh republican senator susan collins pointed to his centrist views, doesn't mean he will or won't be a reliable conservative vote, who better to ask men republican senator mike lee on the senate judiciary committee and you will cast your vote tomorrow. i assume you're still a yes. >> what did you think of senator collins's be? a lot of people say she's pointing out things conservatives didn't love about him but for her it was what made the case. >> not sure what her analysis was but i will tell you what my views are. i looked t

and if you recall from the talking boob tube merrick garland was heaven sent he was a god on monk and he was a man among ants he was then and. he was completely different from kavanagh in ways other than how they voted as judges. cavanagh voted ninety three percent of the time with his colleague judge merrick garland when they both heard cases together on a federal appeals court in d.c. this was hardly brought up during kavanagh's hearings except it was mentioned was mentioned by none other then accuse zodiac killer ted. i think i did however ted cruz was saying it in the vein of look at how awesome and reasonable judge kavanaugh is but of course the real reason obama's pick and trump's pick are ninety three percent identical is because our presidency and our court system have been captured by the corporate state yet right. that is why how could it be you know they want to believe it's dark vs light evil vs good it's darth vader versus luke skywalker how can that be if they're voting together ninety three percent of the time all right it's not dark versus light it's dark versus a slig

do you think will be went more like merrick garland? or do you think that person is going be much more judicially conservative? >> jake: i think you're proving my point. i think it's clear that president trump could nominate another conservative for the seat. but you are seeing opposition to this nominee. not just some democrats, but never lisa murkowski, because of sexual assault allegations. because of his lack of candor. >> what evidence you have of the sexual assault allegations? what evidence is there that it's true? name one. what evidence is there that the allegations are true? give me evidence. >> jake: i think dr. ford's regulations are significant here. >> when she richly said it was mid 1980s and then she said early 1980s and that you give two different versions? >> jake: she narrowed it down to a particular set of months before mark judge was working at the supermarket. >> lisa: how does that verify anything? >> melissa: this is obviously as heated as it has been out there on the floor. passions are running high without ques

chiefjudge garland joined chief judge garland joined in chiefjudge garland joined in more than 96% ofe kavanaugh, dissenting only once. despite all this, after weeks of reviewing judge kavanaugh's record, and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the senate's advice and consent was thrown into a tailspin, following the allegations of sexual assault by professor christine. the confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not judge and lied about it to the judiciary committee. some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that this be resolved against the nominee. others see the public interest as embodied in ourlong see the public interest as embodied in our long established tradition of affording to those accused of miss conduct a presumption of innocence. in cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favour of the nominee. mr president, i understand both viewpoints. this debate is contributed further by the fa ct debate is contributed further by the fact that t

christie: -- jeffery: do you think the republicans made a moral error, on merrickl error garland? gov. christie: it started when harry reid got rid of filibusters on judges. john mccain and others warned him at the time, it's going to cause a real fracture in the way we nominate and confirm judges. and i think john mccain was right. i think that is what started it. and i think the garland move was in many ways the reaction to the killing of the filibuster, but to get to kavanaugh, i think unless the fbi report, and i was u.s. attorney for seven years so i have looked at a lot of fbi 302's, and when i went through a background check to become u.s. attorney, i ultimately foia'd my background file, and it's just raw data. they don't make any determination at all about the credibility of the person they are speaking to, the credibility of the story or evidence. you talk and they write, and they ask some questions that will be natural for what you have said, and they write it up and they handed in. and then you judge, you being the senate, you being the administration, the administrati

vacancy in 2020. >> last week, senator lindsey graham says if a vacancy comes up in 2020, he says the garland standard applies. >>> former secretary of state colin powell says he does not believe trump can be a moral leader. powell pointed to the attacks on the press and ability to insult his opponents and groups that disagree with him. >> my favorite three words in our constitution is the first three words. we the people. we, the people. recently, it has become me, the president as opposed to we, the people. you see things that should not be happening. >> powell added the world is watching and he cannot believe we are separating mothers and children that are trying to get across the border. >>> and days surrounding the disappearance of the head of interpol, the chinese government admits meng hongwei is under investigation. he insisted on taking a wrong path and has himself to blame. chinese authorities have been tight-lipped about disappearance last month. now we have cnn's sam kiley monitoring the situation from hong kong. sam, what's the latest? >> reporter: you say finally after two weeks

it's not just about merrick garland. it's about a set of outcomes that the democrats want in the supreme court, and they can only get it if they have a five-vote majority. >> what are those outcomes? >> oh, they want to control outcomes in areas like privacy, gun control, presidential power, growth of the administrative state, criminal procedure -- a lot of the sort of flash points in american social, political, and cultural life. >> what do conservatives want? >> what conservatives want is a jurisprudence that's not constantly looking at outcomes but instead looking at method and basically understanding that the role of a court is to interpret the laws its written and to provide as much space as possible for political institutions to do what the constitution empowers it to do, which is to make most of the really big policy decisions in american public life. >> one of the things that happened in this process was that brett kavanaugh had to defend his integrity against an allegation that was ultimately unprovable, but in

the senate majority leader has set the record in delaying merrick garland's nomination for more than 300 days. when he even refused to meet with the man, let alone consider a hearing when judge garland was nominated by president obama. to have this majority leader now tell us that we are the ones responsible for delay really is too ignore history, and to ignore the reality of what has occurred here. because of the courage of his members, three of whom have stepped up and said we won't dismiss dr. ford's allegations with just a staff phone call. we want an actual hearing. that was inspired by three republican members of the senate. and we back them up. we thought their request was right. and this fbi investigation, i know a little bit about that because i asked judge kavanaugh directly during the course of this hearing, what he wanted us to do, not what the white house wanted us to do, not what the senate judiciary committee republican leadership wanted to to, what did judge kavanaugh what to do when it came to this fbi investigation. my point is dr. ford is willing to submit her alle

merrick garland, who -- you mean like donald trump called merrick garland to say -- >> no, no, i mean democrats calling merrick garland. >> you mean like senators and people? >> oh, yeah, but all of them were predisposed against brett kavanaugh. you wouldn't called george bush calling these people. >> kavanaugh has deep ties to this bench. when he was in the white house he helped chief roberts get a nomination. elena kagan hired him to teach at harvard. he went to the same high school as gorsuch, and thomas has had a similar experience for his confirmation. you can expect he will be embraced by is there, and he hayes sent many clerks to work for them all. >>> we're waiting for a press conference from the he leadership. as we do, i want to circle back to the election 4 1/2 weeks away, which is kind of amazing. the republicans committee that's overseeing re-electing republicans in the house, i'm told by a source there that the small donations from people around the country is up over 1,000%, now compared to october of 2016, because they see -- this is just in the past week -- because of

garland? host: you are talking about mary garland -- merrick garland. caller: the president started way back -- precedent started back in the 1990's. and in harry reid decided they would eliminate the nuclear option. this whole thing has been political for so long and i hate the way the whole process has been politicized. if you don't like trump, you don't like bush, you obviously come down one way. there are a lot of people that don't like trump but they look at this appointee in a more nuanced fashion. i hate the way the whole process was politicized. i looked at -- i have watched a lot of these because of newly retired. i thought the democratic members of the judicial committee are pretty aggressive in pretty rude judge kavanaugh. have a chance to defend himself for 10 days. when he came out he came out as a man rather than a judge. i agree he was a little sharp. probably should have left the clinton comments out of his sharp rebukes, but it exposed him for being a man. rapes charged with gang and other outrages stuff without any evidence. there is s

for the garland question, the reason that garland is still used in those parti ,lar situations, lisa can better address you, it doesn't affect grasses. statement they are products. and it is used in the grass. that is what we have been using on that. does not affect cool season grasses. it affects the other grass which is a warm season grass. this is why we use it. it does not harm the red fescue. and a similar kind of evaluation when it comes to garland. it does not affect the surrounding vegetation. there are some tier two and tier three products that have persistent -- you don't want to harm. it may be an oak tree. you do not want to apply that on the poison oak and that it may affect the tree you are trying to preserve they are really -- it is a really strategic product unfortunately, we just have not been able to find any alternatives. but we continue to look. >> thank you. i guess the last follow-up is quick. i do want to thank the fellow commissioners on the policy committee for all the work you have been doing. i have listened to the recordings. thank you, anthony. the last q

but you refused to look at merrick garland. he said he wouldn't consider it.situation where democrats are so upset over this process that's produced judge kavanaugh, i worry that the court itself is going to, like so many american institutions, absolutely go down in the trust factor among americans. >> juan, since the bork hearings, those wars have escalated with the nuclear option by harry reid to pack the d.c. circuit court. unfortunately this has gotten worse and worse. i hope we have reached the end of that and we can return to us more dignified process, both to the nominee and that would reflect well on the senate. we have a lot of hardball played. i think we are reaping the whirlwind. >> juan: i think blocking, you know, merrick garland just sticks in so many people's crop. a twice elected president and you won't let him be considered. you might say kavanaugh was unfairly treated but you wouldn't even give merrick garland a chance, a fair hearing. >> this is the biden precedent. he said you don't confirm a supreme court justice during a presidential year

person be qualified for the court we did have somebody who was qualified for the court in merrick garland and last i checked it was the republican party not democrats who left him sitting on the bench without a hearing for a year now they're trying to shove brett kavanaugh through in a month or less why did mitch mcconnell leave merrick garland who was a son nominally qualified justice why didn't leave him sitting there for a year. without even giving him the decency of a hearing i think what democrats are doing here is they're taking the obstructionism and they're just shoving it right back in the face of republicans i think it's just par for the course in washington d.c. say ok fair enough christopher but one could make the argument i certainly would make the argument that this is different in the sense that it's just not playing politics it's really it's destroying a process and it's destroying a tradition i mean sure fine you get your power but what's it worth when you don't have a process that is that everyone could agree to and i think this is that the the new territory we're in go

and you know what i'm going to say, on merrick garland. and held it up forever. and so, you know, that played into all of this. i think mcconnell probably figures his strategy has worked brilliantly. and you know trump and mcconnell have not been besties, but i think now -- i think now donald trump owes mitch mcconnell a big pat on the back here, because he's done for him, and helped him, and kept garland off for republicans and then did this, and did gorsuch. >> hold on a second. here is joe manchin. >> senator, explain your decision to vote for -- >> first of all, i saw that senator collins -- out of respect, i wanted to watch her give hers, and she asked to do that. and i knew -- i saw she was going to do that and i said, fine, i'll watch it. and then i -- >> hey! >> i made my decision. and i gave my reasons for my decision. >> shame! shame! shame! >> you can learn to the people here -- are you concerned -- >> i'm concerned with the sexual abuse people have had to endure, and we have to do something as a country. i had to deal with the facts i had in front of

person be qualified for the court we did have somebody who was qualified for the court in merrick garland and last i checked it was the republican party not democrats who left him sitting on the bench without a hearing for a year now they're trying to show brett kavanaugh through in a month or less why did mitch mcconnell leave merrick garland who was a son nominally qualified justice why didn't leave him sitting there for a year. without even giving him the decency of a hearing i think what democrats are doing here is they're taking the obstructionism the i mean there again they've been jetted themselves into this process here i mean this latest allegation of the the serial rape gang might my goodness i watched that interview on n.b.c. i mean n.b.c. should be ashamed of itself that they even asked the woman the questions before they went on that tape it i mean not only that she looked like a fool n.b.c. looked like even a bigger fool because they're injecting themselves into this here brian please reflect on that. yeah if you think n.b.c. knows is bad you should try watching fox news. i

and another example of being an -- being extreme was garland gilchrist. if the person who she selected to be lieutenant governor and this is a guy who has anti- anti-israel ra anti-evangelical rants, and pro-hamas support which is a , terrorist group by the state department. this is disgraceful. >> more desperate attempts from a guy who is lagging in the polls. fact of the matter is, he's the one that hangs out with anti- semites like ted nugent and steve bannon, who is the author of the anti-muslim travel ban. we deserve better and we need a governor who sees value in every person that comes over the state and lifting up and fight to keep the state safe and make this a destination so that people come to michigan for opportunities so i could stay in our family can get ahead here. >> this next question is about auto no-fault insurance. an issue i've covered ever since i've been covering politics here in this state. it's been visited and revisited in lansing and each time the status quo prevails and those of us paying for insurance generally end up paying m

i think the garland move was a reaction to the killing of the filibuster. now the democrats moves on kavanaugh are that. -- i wase fbi report u.s. secretary, i looked at a lot of sbi 302's. when i went through fbi background checks, i ultimately avoided my background file. it's going to be raw data. they don't make any determination at all about the credibility of the person they are speaking to, the credibility of the story or evidence. you talk, they write. they asked questions that look natural from what you have said and write it up, then they hand it in. the judge, you being the senate, the administration, if the administration is getting a background check -- >> do you believe dr. ford? >> i clearly believe she is a victim. whether she is a victim of brett kavanaugh or not, it is hard to figure out. problem.he there are people in this country, myself included, who don't agree with you. you don't agree with me, but i don't say up here and his you. this is why our politics are where they are. we have people in this audience that are willing to do that.

the senators trace it back to the garland nomination.ere telling me over the weekend this is rock bottom for this institution they are referring to the atmosphere that goes back to garland, that led to kavanaugh with both leader schumer and leader mcconnell in their own separate camps. this is an institution when you see it up close where both sides are very rarely speaking to each other, the tensions are palpable and it comes down future of the courts in a way they are both dug in. leader mcconnell is about power. the courts are his concentration day in, day out. wants to overhaul the federal judiciary. it comes with a cost. he can talk about the historical, the lineups of the senate when other parties are in powerer and all those details. haven't fact checked him on those. the big picture is mcconnell made a choice with garland. he's gotten two supreme court justice out of that choice but the consequence is you have a divided senate and senators on both sides saying the institution is barely functioning. >> robert, in the course of you

if not, merrick garland would have been on the supreme court of the united states. >> i want to moven, but with hindsight was it a mistake to use the nuclear option for lower court federal judges as harry reid and his fellow democrats pushed through? >> look, i think at the time we had on -- an unprecedented obstruction by the republicans and the courts were begging for justine district court nominees, and that's the reality that was faced and that's why they moved ahead. even in the face of the reality they could have gone for the whole thing. they didn't. they purposely preserved the 60-vote threshold for the supreme court. >> a lot of your fellow democrats have pointed out that he preserved that. it made it easier to move forward to approve "sportscentesupreme court nominees. i know you don't want to get into that. did judge kavanaugh say anything in the op-ed he published yesterday to convince you that he will be an impartial justice of the supreme court? >> no. no. i think that's a confirmation conversion. the reality is he showed me who he was when he was before the senate judi

and i certainly don't think the majority leader should have prevented merrick garland from coming to a vote on the floor of the senate. that was outrageous, unprecedented in our history. and i don't think he should have invoked the nuclear option for the supreme court. i think that was a huge mistake. and we are going to have a partisan process forever, mr. president, unless we can find some way back there. this new majority rule when it comes to judicial nominees is why we now have supreme court nominees auditioning on cable television networks. in this case, fox news. it's why the president hold a political rally and use it as an occasion to mock the accusers. it's why the white house limited the investigation to ignore key witnesses allowing the majority leader to declare as he did this morning that it uncovered, quote, no backup from any witnesses. well, they weren't interviewed. it is important to remember that because of what the majority leader did to judge garland when justice scalia died, left open a vacancy on the supreme court for more than 400 days, 400 days, and we can't

, dissenting only one. >> it feeds perfectly into your point which is that she said merrick garland, the person that they wanted on the high court makes republican say wait a second. she called him a centrist. while there is celebration at the white house this is someone who could be less conservative on the court then conservatives think? >> i have no idea why senator collins thinks that. i have read the opinions from the d.c. circuit and many of his conservative colleagues think sometimes his opinions go too far. i have no idea what she's talking about other than maybe trying to save herself from feeling bad when she wakes up in the morning. he is not a centrist. >> maybe try to explain the vote in speaking to the left saying he's not as conservative as you think. >> trump would not have naman him if he wasn't going to strike down roe versus wade. >> he said that in the debate that he expected he would nominate pro-life judges as he did with neil gorsuch chen brett kavanaugh. then it will be overturned and go back to the states. people haven't talked about the economy, government r