gossage -- george -- judge gorsuch refused tonswer. when justice kennedy was asked about brown, he replied, "i think brown v. board of education was right when it is -- when it was decided." host: that hearing happened yesterday morning. the majority leader took to the floor to talk about the republicans efforts going wererd and why democrats blocking judge gorsuch oscar nomination. >> it was unfortunate to see colleagues break with recent resident and not support this well-qualified and widely respected supreme court nominee. i would remind colleagues that in addition to agreeing an up-and-down vote to the nominations on the senate floor, republican's offered each of the last four first-term supreme court nominees of democratic presidents clinton and obama at least some bipartisan support in a committee vote. judge gorsuch is no less clock -- no less qualified than those who were nominated by president clinton and obama. it is disappointing he didn't get the same sort of a bipartisan support today. it now seems apparent that thi

my callings are calling on george gorsuch to ask this dark money group backing his nomination to tell us who is behind him. we are calling on the group directly to come clean to the american people about their backers. we need that answer before the vote on monday. unfoldsn, where history daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. this week on "the communicators" we want to introduce you to the new president and ceo of u.s. telecom. first of all, welcome to the washington world again. what is u.s. telecom? >> first of all, thank you, it is great to be back in washington. i am excited about working with our numbers and reconnecting it's a pleasure. u.s. telecom is a wonderful community of broadway innovators who are men and women doing the hard work of digging the trenches and laying the fiber to light up the next generation of internet innovation we are all gloriously experiencing. our companies are busy serving tens of millions of customers in each of the 50 states, th

so far senator merkley has spent his time talking about george gorsuch's record, why he's opposed to judge gorsuch and also what he says is the only relevant context in which this nomination is playing out. what he calls the theft of a supreme court seat that should have been killed by president obama's nominee. >> the majority team in this chamber decided to steal a supreme court seat. again, such a theft never, ever has happened in the history of our nation. the majority said we intent to pack the court of the united states of america. there was no principle to the position. it was a warfare tactic of partisanship to pack the court. it was a end justifies the means even if the means violates the core premise of the constitution and does deep damage to the senate and does deep damage to the court. >> that was senator jeff merkley of oregon speaking earlier this evening, but he is still there. again, this is a live picture. senator merkley is in hour three right now. in terms of the context, democrats have announced they'll filibuster neil gorsuch's nomination. they do have the votes

and for the american system of democracy that the united states senate be allowed to vote on george gorsuch as nomination to the united states supreme court. it wasn't enough to not only vote on a motion to end the debate. we also needed to be allowed to vote on the actual nomination, yes, or no. unfortunately our friends on the democratic side of the aisle decided to filibuster in order to make it impossible for us to vote on this crucial nominee without modifying the rules of the united states senate. that is what we did earlier today. i don't know that anybody did il happily, but certainly a majority of the united states senate believed the american people deserved an up or down vote. yes or no, stand up and be counted in front of god and country, do you want judge neil gorsuch to be on the supremen. court, or do you not. that vote is going to take place tomorrow afternoon. now, the constitution says the president of the united states and i'm quoting now, shall nominate and bind with the advice and consent of the senate supreme court,". i do not need to tell you mr. president that this i

i draw support for my conclusion about that when college that george gorsuch was involved in one involved with contraception the effort -- the other was an effort to defund planned parenthood. they reached a decision that was pro women's health access to go back to the district court but in both cases they took the highly unusual step even though they did not want to. but that is virtually un heard of. they said that. in the fact that he would do it in two cases both withch w women's health access. in the final confirmation hearing he was asked directly if he agreed withec griswold vs. connecticut the decision that says married couples could not be criminalize for usingsi contraception. w he said it is of precedent worthy of respect would not agree. chief justice roberts said he agreed. and thomas injustice toledo said he agreed that judge gorsuch would not. this is been used repeatedly to basically create a body of constitutional precedent that says the relationships of people should be freed from intrusion of the ever met. you cannot come alliance because of theirg relationship. fare no

should george neil gorsuch get the up or down vote? democrats didn't want an up or down vote.edented, a filibuster of a supreme court nominee beyond qualified. go to facebook.com/seanhannity facebook.com/seanhannity, @seanhannity on twitter. time for your messages. >> i think you've got the best show on television. fooled you. i knew that was the only way i could get on. you stink. wrap it up. you are horrible. >> you are a good man, a good conservative. please stop throwing that nerf football around. >> sean: if i throw a real football, i break the lights and every time i break the lights, our lighting guy gets mad and i had to fix it. this is the only one i am legally allowed to have in studio, or i get fined. that's why. we have fun anyway. have something to say? call the number on your screen. 877-225-8587. that's all the time we have left this evening. thanks for being with us. we will see you back here with more explosive details on surveillance, unmasking, and leaking intelligence. this is huge. see you tomorrow night. >> bill: "the o'reilly factor" is on tonight. a >>

not a single one of the as 2700 cases he participated 97% were decided unanimously and george -- judge gorsuch was then the of majority 99 percent of the time and then to overrule the opinion where judge gorsuch sat on the panel wants was serving he built an exceptional reputation for his fair minded and sharp intellectford standard president sat with him on the tenth circuit characterized him as an independent thinker and one of the best writers in the judiciary today but not to side with one in reject the heather and judge gorsuch is one of the most best professional backgrounds the body has ever seen graduating from columbia and harvard law school and also obtained a doctorate degree in philosophy from oxford university and was a commercial scholar clerking the the u.s. court and supreme court justice white and kennedy.y deal also served as principal deputy assistant at the department of justice before serving as u.s. circuit court of appeals for the tenth circuit. gorsuch has for all of these achievements judge gorsuch has achieved the highest possible reading -- reading the gold standard

republicans advanced george gorsuch in the judiciary committee, clearing his weight on the senate floor. mitch mcconnell has said gorsuch will be confirmed one way or another this week. australia has kept its cash rates at a record low, 1.5%. policyision continues paralysis as the housing market is too hot to allow for easing, and the economy lacks the strength to endure tightening. the u.k. trade secretary said asia-pacific has become the most important region, in terms of the global economy. the comment was on the visit to the philippines to talk trade and investment. he is looking for opportunities for british businesses outside of the european union as the country prepares to leave the bloc. center -- where the center of the gravity of the global economy has moved to. there are opportunities here in terms of exports, but also of investment moving in both directions. we are looking to see how we can expand u.k. exports, which are, at the moment, too low. we have to get those exports going up. global news 24 hours a day, powered by more than 2600 journalists and analysts in more than

this says more about the senate than it does george -- judge gorsuch. >> let's take a life look inside the senate judiciary committee. emma katz have complained about the treatment of president obam president obama's nominate merrick garland received he was never considered by the senate, and some are complaining about republicans who are likely to change senate president to get judge gorsuch confirmed. >> my conscience will not allow me to ratify the majority leader's actions, not last year, not this year. i will not. i cannot support it. >> some republicans have countered that democrats would not accept any of president trump's potential supreme court nominees, they say judge gorsuch is qualified it we expect a critical step in committee today. >> jon: mike emanuel on a very busy capitol hill, thank you. >> jenna: expected some speakers during the committee hearing, we will bring you back there when they get the microphone. in the meantime have a very busy day on the other side of pennsylvania avenue as well. president trump rolling out the welcome mat for the egyptian president, not

comes within its first 100 days and you can bet they are making note of that going forward, george. >> justice gorsuchy moran. justice gorsuch will be the first to serve with one of to his former bosses, justice kennedy. but people hope he votes more like the man whose seat he is filling. >> reporter: correct. he was the swing vote sometimes with liberals and sometimes conservatives. there is little question this is a man who his whole life, going back to high school and college where he started conservative publ publicafa the ions. they expect him to alynn with justice scalia. justice kennedy, there is a sense amongst him that he is considering resigning. that will be an epical event if he got to replace justice kennedy. no sign of that yet, but justice kennedy's son and president trump's son are friendly in new york city real estate, and there is a great deal of swirling speculation about it. >> we heard a lot about that while the president was courting him. no word from justice kennedy about retirement. terry and cecilia, thank you. we'll return to regular programming. for many of you on the west c

techniques were within bill law of leslie inflicted pain associated with organ failure or death george -- judge gorsuch reached out to the white house approximately six months after the revelations to say how. >> guest: did to help the cause and to be a full-time member the team than marched 2005 he reached out to a republican national committee who would vouch for gorsuch as a true when list and conservative. judge gorsuch joined the bush administration and through our examination we learned during his tenure of the department of justice he was involved in efforts to strip detainee's to have habeas in federal court defend and protect the position on torture and issue an expansive signing statement on the dtb treatment. these were used to highlight parts of the law the administration tended not to follow. and we learned that judge gorsuch advocated for the bush administration to issue a broad signing statement that it could be used to help inoculate against the potential of having the administration criticized in the future for not making sufficient changes in interrogations policy in light of the mcca

judge gorsuch was appointed by president george w. bush to the tenth circuit in 2006. he was unanimously confirmed any the united states senate. in fact, some of those democrats who did not oppose judge gorsuch then included his harvard law classmate barack obama, vice president joe biden, and minority leader chuck schumer. of utmost importance in a justice is a desire and the ability to apply the law as it was intended, not to legislate from the bench. so i can tell you i was very thrilled to hear judge gorsuch say this -- he said, a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands. on february 9, i met judge gorsuch in my office. let me tell you, he's impressive. we discussed the constitution. we discussed the second amendment. i represent the state of montana. i can tell you, as we look at our constitution and our bill of rights, the second amendment is very important to the people of montana. he will defend the second amendment. we talked about the separation of powers, the role

should proceed, but one way or the other we will confirm judge gorsuch and perhaps end up just returning us to the status quo before the george w. bush administration when the senate had had 200 year plus traditional of not filibustering judges. >> let me just add that if you look at the arguments that are being made by the democrats on gorsuch most of them are arguing that somehow he's not in the mainstream and if you look at the 2,700 cases that have come out of the tenth circuit, he's been in the majority 99% of those, 97% of those were unanimous and of the 800 opinions that he's written on the tenth circuit 98% he's been in the majority. 98% has been unanimous. but so if you look at what the democrats are saying on this, it's completely doesn't stand the test of scrutinizing this man's record. clearly their arguments are trying to appease the far left of the political party, the democratic party in the country and we believe that this -- this judge will be confirmed. he is someone who is well-qualified. he's somebody who does -- is in the mainstream and the question really of how eesz confirmed is up to the democrats. we

there is nothing like, in the gorsuch hearing, the level of vitriol that there were in the bork hearings when reagan was president or in the clarence thomas hearings when george h.w. bush was president. >> bill: those men were much more conservative than judge gorsuch is. >> in don't think you can say that about clarence thomas. the time, he was head of the eeoc. there was nothing outrageously conservative about him. that was a political hit job of the first order, and it was -- >> bill: do you think, and i know you don't i'm going to ask anyway. the hatred against ronald reagan was at the same level of donald trump? >> i don't. that's why i don't think this is about hatred of the president. i think this has to do with the fact that democrats decided, and it began, no doubt it began with the board hearing. they decided twoyears of tradition, which was you should generally approve a judge who is somehow educated, intelligent. experience. judge scalia was approved. the difference between judgeca scalia, bork, practically nothing. they decided that they had to have the court because liberalism is not a majority opinion. it's a minority. if you wanted to continue

george w. bush nominated judge gorsuch to serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the tenth circuit. the senate confirmed him by a voice vote. that's unanimous. mr. president, let me say that again because it's -- it's relevant to the misplaced, in my opinion, partisan rancor we're hearing over this nomination. in 2006, only senator lindsey graham bothered to attend the senate judiciary committee's hearing to consider neil gorsuch's nomination to the tenth circuit court of appeals. this body, including then-senators joe biden, hillary clinton, and barack obama were so confident with his qualifications to serve as a judge that he was confirmed without anybody asking for a recorded vote. with what is, in essence, three of the most influential political figures then serving in the senate from across the aisle, i find this questioning of judge gorsuch's qualifications baffling. i hope my friends will put aside some of the score keeping an give neil gorsuch a fair vote up or down based his suitability for the supreme court. since joining the tenth circuit, judge gorsuch has been a busy ma

george, your word on the first 100 days? >> one thing that is momentous. gorsuch on the supreme court. that will radiate for decades. the reagan administration is still in power in the sense that justice kennedy is there. so that's enormous, but the hard work was done when he was candidate. the federalist society, the heritage foundation, produced a list of 21 justices, they get mr. trump to say he would pick from that list. mitch mcconnell changes the senate rules, it happens. that was easy. it was a layup, as it were. for the rest the most you can say, it's incomplete. because the free form nature of this shape shifting presidency, it's like open mike night at the improv, day after day. so it's incomplete and so far i think highly unsatisfactory. the one thing he tried to do, the great deal-maker, was the repeal and replacement of obamacare, and that has not happened. it's not going to happen soon. they may pass what they will call the repeal and replacement of obamacare but it's going to look an awful lot like a repair. >> and the reason is, i think his impulse

zero. >> expand this out, if gorsuch was a nominee and ronald reagan were president or george h.w. bush were president do you think the democrats would be any more accommodating and wouldn't try -- >> bill: i can't answer that. >> the answer know. >> bill: look, there isn't anything donald trump campaigned on," anything, the democrats will support. not even improving the economy by having a tax cut. not even that. not even revamping obamacare which has punished working americans. they're not going to support anything. they hate him. they can't stand his face. >> well, i'm glad there's at least one psychiatrist in our discussion. it appears to be you. you appear to have direct insight into the motives. i don't know the motives. for some people on the congress, perhaps yes. for some no. the explanation is the party is enraged. they lost the election to a guy they think is unworthy and can't get over it. >> bill: you're saying about what i'm saying. >> no, i'm not. you boil it down to its simplest form they're so angry and can't stand him. >> the "they" you use can be for anything. i'

george w. bush nominated judge gorsuch to serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the tenth circuit. the senate confirmed him by a voice vote. that's unanimous. mr. president, let me say that again because it's -- it's relevant to the misplaced, in my opinion, partisan rancor we're hearing over this nomination. in 2006, only senator lindsey graham bothered to attend the senate judiciary committee's hearing to consider neil gorsuch's nomination to the tenth circuit court of appeals. this body, including then-senators joe biden, hillary clinton, and barack obama were so confident with his qualifications to serve as a judge that he was confirmed without anybody asking for a recorded vote. with what is, in essence, three of the most influential political figures then serving in the senate from across the aisle, i find this questioning of judge gorsuch's qualifications baffling. i hope my friends will put aside some of the score keeping an give neil gorsuch a fair vote up or down based his suitability for the supreme court. since joining the tenth circuit, judge gorsuch has been a busy ma

george w. bush administration. so neil gorsuch i think is the kind of nominee that our democratic friends really haven't been able to find any real fault with except that he was nominated by this president. and they realize that this is their last gasp to try to prevent him from being confirmed. but they won't, and judge gorsuch will be confirmed this week one way or another. i hope the democrats will provide the 60 votes and we don't have to worry about the change of rules. >> dickerson: but in 1968, republicans did filibuster a judge. your point is it wasn't a purely partisan filibuster. so in terms of the history of the senate this has been done before, what would be new is if you changed the rules. >> abe fortis' nomination was rit drawn and he resigned from the supreme court for ethical reasons some it's not precedent for what's happening now. this is an unprecedented escalation to deny the president his right. if they filibuster neil gorsuch, they'll filibuster everyone this president might propose. >> dickerson: senator jon

george w. bushary committee is going to vote on supreme court neil gorsuch. senator majority leader mitch mcconnell will do whatever it takes to break a filibuster by democrats. it is not clear if he will need to, 3 democrats will vote for neil gore ali gorman so >> we can't continue to allow china to rape our country that's what they are doing. >> reporter: now with an interview with the financial times, president trump said china will help us with north korea or they won't. north korea is doing their own saber rattling saying if you bring out a knife to attack us, we'll take out a sword. >>> meantime a golf round with rand paul indicated that healthcare talks are continuing. don't expect any movements on healthcare soon, that issues continues to dog republicans as does russia. >>> dr. david schulcin was the v.a. undersecretary during the obama administration. >>> phillies open against cincinnati. first pitch 4:10 p.m., the home opener friday, at citizens bank park. >> new on "action news," rescuers say that a dog fell down a 30-foot well. >> a woman at a ga

to all the people who serve with george -- judge gorsuch in a variety of roles throughout their life and his, they told us without any hesitation he is one of the finest people they know. so when nancy pelosi says if you breathe air, drink water can eat food, take medicine or any other way interact with the courts, this is a very bad decision. i think that says more about nancy pelosi that it does judge gorsuch. so from a qualification point of view, there is no argument. from a character point of view there is no argument. from the outcome of the election, i am glad that president donald trump chose neil gorsuch turkey could not have done better. and they did not expect him to win. this is what i said. march 2016 i have been telling everybody on my side she's going to pick somebody probably more liberal than president obama is going to send over in a few days. of course carlin. i'm going to vote for that person i think is called flickered the president deserves the right to pick judges. that gets us back to garland. joe biden told us what he would do if a nominee, if a vacancy occur

broad claims of executive power, as a lawyer at the department of justice, judge gorsuch defended president bush's, that's george bush's enhanced interrogation methods. in 2005 congress passed the detainee treatment act which was meant to ensure greater human rights for detainees held at guantanamo bay. judge gorsuch, working as a department of justice lawyer at the time, managed to weaken a provision in the detainee treatment act permitting a civilian appeals court to review decisions by military tribunals. the original draft let judges scrutinize whether tribunal had applied the correct standards. but the revised language only let them look to see whether the tribunal had applied standards set by the pentagon. that's quite a change. after the legislation was passed, gorsuch sent an e-mail to a colleague in the white house in which he said he needed cheering up. in the e-mail, he discussed his sceferl efforts to weaken the legislation stating,, quote, the administration's victory is not well known, but its significance shouldn't be understated. after the supreme court issued a landmark ruling in june 2006 imply

. >> jon: for more on judge neil gorsuch's nomination, let's bring and tom depree, former deputy assistant attorney general under president georgesh. you have heard the minority leader chuck schumer and other democratic senators say that neil gorsuch is not qualified to sit on the supreme court. you have argued a number of cases in front of the supreme court justices, many of them notable. what do you think about that assertion? >> i think it is nonsense. judge gorsuch is a fantastic choice. i understand there are partisans and folks who disagree with judge gorsuch just view on the law, ideological and political opponent. i don't think any reasonable person could look at his record, listen to what he said in his confirmation hearings and come away with the conclusion that he is anything other than superbly qualified to sit on the united states supreme court. >> jon: we are getting to the place where judges are going to be chosen by their political beliefs, aren't we? if you have thrown out the possibility of a filibuster, if you have one party in power in the senate and the same party controlling the white house, you're going to

opinions it's clear judge gorsuch is a mainstream nominee who understands the importance of putting personal beliefs aside and applying the law as written. this is why george washington law school professor jonathan turley argued that he shouldn't be pen aolizeed for his past decisions, the jurisprudence reflect not pricingly a jurist who crafts his decisions very closely to the text after start and in my view that is not vice for a federal judge. it is for the reasons

gorsuch, and tomorrow we'll confirm that nominee. lou: former deputy assistant attorney general done duprie joins us next. lou: joining me a former deputy assistant attorney general under president george recusing himself from the russian investigation, the russian trump campaign investigation. a lot of people are upset that he did that. and that it was utterly unnecessary. and they see it as caving to george soros and his open society funding groups like moveon.org. your reaction. >> i haven't seen any evidence that congressman nunes did anything wrong. so the question is, did he violate the law? lou: the evidence is he has been corroborated in his statements. >> what was in all likelihood playing in his mind when he made the decision he did. he had become the story. the story was about the man leading the investigation rather than the investigation himself. in that sense i think he made a reasonable decision. saying i'll eliminate this potential line of attack from the democrats and exit from the investigation and let it move forward. lou: at 11:30 a.m. tomorrow there will be a vote with a simple majority determining that neil gorsuch will be the next associate justice of the supreme

a sampling of authoritarianism can be seen in gorsuch's service in jrnlg w. bush's -- george w. bush's justice department where he helped craft a proposal for the treatment of detainees at guantanamo. their social conservatism too evident in his one book, a critique of death with dignity laws and physician-assisted suicide. all human beings are intrinsically valuable, he wrote. and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong. it's easy to read the book as a coded attack on abortion rights. to the extent that gorsuch said anything of substance at his hearing, he put himself across as a mainstream figure. he said he had participated in some 2700 cases on the appeals court and voted with the majority in 99% of them. this proves only that most cases are routine. even the supreme court issues unanimous rulings more than half the time. the hard cases are the ones that matter. it's reasonable to project how gorsuch would vote in them. he would oppose abortion rights. trump promised to appoint a pro-life justice. his election of employers over employees is th

gorsuch to the us supreme court. senators voted 54-55 to conform the george after republicans changed senate rules utilizing the nuclear option to allow a simple majority vote instead of 60 votes to approve the supreme court nominee. it's a victory for president trump who vowed to appoint a conservative to replace the late justice anthony's kalil. >> this is a person of extraordinary credentials who will bring honor to the supreme court for many many years to come. >> the nuclear option means it -- the end of 200 years of support. >> he is set to be sworn in next monday. >>> joining us as our political analyst. were certainly seeing a different approach under the trump administration. he opposed refugees but took military action quickly the opposite of president obama. before we get your reaction, i want to read you a tweet from a congressman or massachusetts. he pointed out something i think a lot of people are talking about. the questioning his syrian strategy. so president of the united states cares enough about the syrian people to lunch 50 tomahawks but not enough to let the victims of asad find refuge and freedom

george w. bush and of course a fox news contributor. good to see you from texas. supreme court justice gorsuch chemist or a missile strike, sent their message to kim jong un. is this 100 day mark and appropriate barometer or as an overgrown? >> is completely overgrown. the last time we had 100 day presidency that mattered was 1933 and conditions were much different. president fdr had a huge electoral mandate with 57% of the vote to his opponents 40%. kerry and huge majorities in the house and senate. 200 fort team democrats plus five democrat labour members from minnesota as their allies. huge majorities. he was also the last president to be an underrated march forth. every president thereafter has been inaugurated so we had six more weeks to prepare for his first 100 days and work with the huge majority that he had in the house and senate. three years into the great depression. since then, 100 days is not enough time to get anything done significantly. they were talking about 2001. at this point in his presidency, george w. bush was on his way to his domestic initiative no child left behind.

gorsuch on the supreme court. andre the republicans angry are they prepared [indiscernible ] -- considering what everyone said four years ago? >> there was not a filibuster of a judge at all until george w. bush became president of the united states. it was always a possibility but because of chuck schumer, because of a number of liberal up thiss, they cooked idea that you could establish a 60-vote threshold, a majority vote threshold. this is, in many ways after a long, painful detour a return to from thes quo back george w. bush presidency. that means president trump will be able to get his supreme court justices confirmed with a majority vote but that also means the next democrat president will also get his or with ainees confirmed majority vote. question] rnible >> that was the status quo. >> do worry you will regret using the nuclear option for the supreme court justice to say we really wish we had not done that much more >> i do not think any of us are going to regret anything. all of a sudden been in a position of assuming that only democrats filibuster judges and after 200 years, until we got to 2001 into the chuck schumer speech and ideology playing a big role for the first t

george w. bush has been attempts by the white house to take more and more executive power. and just ify it legally. some say neil gorsuchas a part of that. it happened under bush, a lot under obama and seems to be happening under trump. the white house thinks it gets to make decisions without the other branchs of government. >> that is a crucial trend in presidential power and you're right. it began with theodore roosevelt, who said the president could do whatever the constitution didn't forbid. it expanded under bush and obama. now, under president trump, conservatives, progressives and libertarians say this is going too far. as a judge, he's been ready to check president's regulatory power when he thinks it is not authorized by congress. in that sense, he is inclined to check president trump more than justice scalia would have been. >> we're keeping a close eye on theenate flooon the left side of your screen. we'll bring you the updates as they happen. >>> up next, how the u.s. air strikes are going to have an impact on the syrian people. we'll take a look at whether president assad could retaliate against his own peo

success whether it's keystone or neil gorsuch, there is a list of things that could be considered successful. howie: gillian, you worked for barack obama as well as georgebush. how would you compare obama to president trump. >> president obama had the honeymoon period. part of that overlaps with the first 100 days. if i was going to break it down measure by measure. the first 100 days is the honeymoon day. howie: president trump got zero honeymoon. >> he didn't even get a week of a honeymoon period. howie: is there a benefit of the doubt? >> within hours of his taking the oath of office the president was out there in a full-flown war with the media. a lot of it was instigated by him. every single day since then he has gone after the media. so you say the media come up and say we are going to fact check this guy more aggressively. howie: he will say he was responding to unfair coverage and he needs to push back. he did it successfully during the campaign. >> the president says something untrue, the media says that's not right, and he says, fake news. we are entering a vicious spiral. but at the end of the day the press has a job to do to call balls and s

commentator, former advisor to president george w bush, and republican political strategist, ron christie. talk to me about the political strategy of this because neil gorsuching to fight this as much as they are when it could be causing them problems in one election campaign? it's simple. the democrats feel that they have to the base. they have to play to play to those that but that hillary clinton will be the next president. they are really disappointed by the fact that the justice that president obama had pointed out to get a hearing. this is payback time. it is about to miss jetting to the base that they are fighting and that they will stop donald trump anywhere possible. this is really all about politics and not about how good of a judge neil gorsuch might be? yes, some people say he's qualified. he might be qualified but they might not like his positions. some of these democrats might disapprove of what you would do with america. this is about ideology. of course it is very conservative. he is an original list, wants to hold to the original wording of the constitution. but democrats say that they should have a modern take on the constitution. i'm look

george w. bush had done one and president trump obama had done zero, president trump has done 13. >> sean: neil gorsuch's was a huge promise. that's a huge promise kept. the fact the president worked the phones on all of these corporations, chrysler fiat, gm, carrier, and promising to invest so much in the country. getting rid of these regulations especially as it relates to coal, ending the war on coal. illegal immigration. now enforcing the laws, fighting against sanctuary cities. at the border wall. we saw what he did in syria, the mother of all bombs. sanctioning iran, syria, and then setting the table for all these things. the media, if you listen to them, it's like he hasn't done anything in 100 days. >> so my people aren't listening to that. they are judging based on what they see. they see constant action, a constant move towards progress. keeping those campaign promises and doing the right thing. he has been incredibly responsive as commander-in-chief to but his response has been swift and resolute and that as a leader. what i would also point out, if you think about it in three big categories,

liberal billionaires like tom steyer, george soros, found their own dark money organizations like next-gen climate, a group that describes judge gorsuch as "an extreme candidate, wrong for the supreme court." under any circumstances." everyone in this room knows that liberal and progressive groups have been pressuring the minority leader to find a reason, any reason, to filibuster the nominee. naro has run ads to pressure members to filibuster. we even had some groups called progressive change campaign committee target a senior, an extremely well respected democrat over his "squishy" comments suggesting he might not filibuster. in short, they've threatened to primary any democrat who supports the nomination. now, that's very dark. and of course, all last year, the groups on the left who coordinated and attacked on me because i didn't hold a hearing on garland, they followed me all over iowa, ran commercials, put up billboards, even had a plane pulling a banner over a special event in des moines. can you imagine that plane traveling around iowa with that banner, saying "grassley, do your job," or mobile billboards, "do your job," at ev

gorsuch, who was born in 1967. he was raised in denver, colorado. a graduate of harvard law school graduating in 1991. president george w. bush appointed him to the 10th circuit court of appeals. he was a clerk for two supreme court justices. he studied at oxford university and columbia university. we will go to john from virginia. good morning. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. thank you. 20 years ago i was a naval officer and a congressional liaison from the pentagon. in my first day of work, i heard about this vote. i thought what is this closure vote all about? i was not that bright. but i got smarter about the rules of the senate. two points. a very goodhad article last week about how we got to the 60 vote threshold back in the 1970's under then majority leader mansfield. for might be worthwhile people to read if they are interested in history. second point, even though i am a conservative, i am actually against what i think the republicans are going to do later today because i think you need bipartisanship, but on the other hand, i think the democrats have undercut their own argument by some of the very

gorsuch. some of that is the natural flow of how parties have developed. bill clinton polarizing. george w. bush very polarizing. barack obama and now donald trump in his own way is just as polarizing as those predecessors if not more so. i don't think this is a landmark event in that process, which has been ongoing and at a very high level for a while. >> is there anything to suggest to you that this is reversible in the short to medium term? that the senate goes back to having its structure be a check on partisanship as it was in the past? >> it is a slight check on partisanship. it is not entirely like the house, which is the hot house. it's a majoritarian institution so majorities can do whatever they want. the way the senate functioned as a check on partisanship in the past was at a time when the political parties themselves were not as partisan because they were more ideologically diverse. you had conservative democrats and liberal republicans. we don't have that anymore. we have distinct parties and that raises the stakes of every fight and you have ideology and partisanship reinforc

liberal billionaires like tom stire, george soros found their own organizations like next gen climate. a group that describes judge gorsuchxtreme candidate wrong for the supreme court under any circumstances, end of quote. everyone in this room knows that liberal and progressive groups have been pressuring the minority leader to find a reason, any reason to filibuster the nominee. narol has run ads to pressure members to filibuster. we even had some groups called progressive change campaign committee target a senior and extremely well-respected democrat over his quote, unquote, squishy comments suggesting he might not filibuster. in short, they've said the primary any democrat who supports the nomination. now that's very dark. and of course all last year the groups on the left who coordinated an attack on me because i didn't hold hearings on garland. they followed me all over iowa, ran commercials, put up billboards, even had a plane pulling a banner over a special event in des moines. can you imagine that plane travelling around iowa with that banner saying, grassley do your job or mobile billboards do your job at every

george w. bush, filibustering his lower court nominations and in 2013 harry reid invoked the "nuclear option". the republicans had no choice because essentially if the democrats weren't going to accept gorsuch, who were they going to accept? and what never gets explained on tv, everyone hears about the lower federal courts and what harry reid did. the lower federal courts and the united states supreme court are interconnected. a lower federal court crafts the case, that outcome has a direct bearing on the united states supreme court regardless whether you have nine conservatives or nine liberals up there. i think this is a bad day overall, what's going to wind up happening going forward, a short-run victory for the republicans but we'll have justices who no longer are bipartisan who are going to be far more ideological, every united states senate seat up for grabs is a referendum on the supreme court. trish: in this case, the "nuclear option" the conservatives favor, because they have donald trump there for the next nearly four years. >> if we have justice ginsburg or justice breyer get off there. this could wind up affecting the legislative filibuster, that could be good for republicans ri

liberal billionaires like tom steyer, george soros fund their own dark money organizations like nextgen climate, a group that describes judge gorsuch as "an extreme candidate, wrong for the supreme court under any circumstances." everyone in this room knows that liberal and progressive groups have been pressuring the minority leader to find a reason, any reason, to filibuster the nominee. naral has run ads to pressure members to filibuster. even had some groups called progressive change campaign committee target a senior and extremely well-respected democrat over his, quote-unquote" squishy comments suggesting he might not filibuster. in short, they've said in the primary any democrat who supports the nomination -- they've threatened to primary any democrat who supports that nomination. now that's very dark. and last year, the groups on the left who coordinated attack on me, they followed me all over iowa, ran commercials, put up billboards, even had a plane pulling a banner over a special event in des moines. can you imagine that plane travel around iowa with that banner saying, "grassley, do your job"? or mobile billboards" do yo

. >> reporter: but, george, the republicans are saying come hell or high water they will get gorsuchfirmed even if it means changing the rules in the senate so they can confirm him with a simple majority vote. right now there are three democrats who are on record saying that they will support gorsuch. that's not enough to get to 60 but if the republicans can change the rules, it's enough to get him confirmed. >> jon, the president had tough tweets about those freedom caucus conservatives in the house last week who weren't behind him on health care but yesterday out on the golf course trying to mend fences with senator rand paul. >> reporter: yeah, keep in mind, rand paul, there was no more consistent or harsh critic of the president's bill, the health care bill than rand paul. he was out there immediately hammering it. was consistently critical of it throughout the process. and he emerged from this round of golf saying he's optimistic that there can be republican agreement on health care. it's hard to see, george, exactly how that happens, but getting rand paul on board if he could g

george bush. my republican friends think they have cause to change the rules because we're about to deny cloture to the nomination of judge gorsuch. we believe that what republicans did to merrick garland was worse than a filibuster, declearing mere hours after justice scalia's death that they would deny the constitutional prerogative of a president with 11 months left in his term and, as my colleague from illinois noted, we did not hear two words in the long speech of senator mcconnell merrick garland. we could relitigate these debates for the next hour mentioning everything the republican leader left out in his remarks. in fact, i'm pretty sure we could argue endlessly about where and with whom this all started. was it the bork nomination or the obstruction of judges under president clinton? was it when democrats blocked judges under president bush? or when republicans blocked them under president obama? was it judge garland or judge gorsuch? wherever we place the starting point of this long twilight battle over the judiciary, we are now at its end point. these past few weeks we democrats have given judge gorsuch a fair process

george h.w. bush. but there have also been several of his colleagues nominated by president bill clinton. judge gorsuch even mentioned in his testimony that he was in judge panels and presiding with judge william holloway who was appointed by president lyndon b. johnson. these three-judge panels tend to have judges who were appointed by republicans and democrats alike. 97% of the time unanimous. 98% of the time his decisions were in the majority. so again, i think it's pretty good, the odds are pretty good that we're going to agree with judge gorsuch a lot of more than we disagree with him when we look at his cases. he's a consensus builder. he's a guy that figures out how to come to a decision that people agree with on different sides of the aisle and from different points of view. that's what his record is. actually that doesn't surprise me at all because he clerked in the supreme court for two justices. one was byron white and the other was justice anthony kennedy. those are two justice who get a lot of heat from both sides why? because they tend to be in the middle. they tend to be that fifth vote