that nominee was neil gorsuch. and i have to say president trump hit a home run with justice gorsuch. i came to this floor nearly a dozen times in support of justice gorsuch's nomination because i knew neil gorsuch and i knew what kind of a judge he would be. i knew he would interpret the constitution according its original meaning, not according to the pet theories of liberal law professors or liberal activists. i knew he would give effect to the plain text of statutes rather than running around to find bits and pieces of legislative history to support his preferred view. and i knew he would hold the administration -- the administrative state to task and help check the unrestrained growth of the unelected, unaccountable fourth branch of government. justice gorsuch has done all that, and more. he has shown himself to be an independent thinker who faithfully applies the text of the constitution and the text of statutes. he's shown that is perfectly be comfortable every -- comfortable disagreeing with the administrat

justice gorsuch has done that and more. he has shown himself to be an independent thinker who faithfully applies the text of the constitution in the text of stature. he has shown he is comfortable disagreeing with the administration when the administration advances what he believes is a wrong argument. most of all he understands deeply that under our constitution political power lies with the people and their elected representatives, not nine justices in washington, d.c. in all of the ways neil gorsuch has been a home run, but kavanaugh will be one to parent figures of the d.c. circuit he has been independent fair-minded jurist who is deeply committed to the constitution and the rule of law. he has made his mark in cases involving the separation of powers and agency decision-making. he is serious about ensuring that the branches of government stay on that agency officials have sufficient political accountability. his shown a commitment to first and second amendment freedoms. and all this he has been a true intellectual lead

knew it was down to neil gorsuch and thomas hardyman but we weren't sure until gorsuch appeared on that stage that he picked him to replace justice scalia. robert: he's reading theaps. we know the president reads the prin edition of the newspapers. we can thank him for that. one ori your s looked at judge kavanaugh. there's been a lot of scrutiny not only from democrats but from republicans on judge kavanaugh en if he's a conservative. why is that? >> there's one ruling that he made on a jurisdictional issue involving the affordable care act that some point to evidence of squishyness. but he was a member of ken starr case investigating the monica lewinsky. he was one of the prime authors of the starr report. and in that report he grounds for impeaching a president and in this was president clinton. he included lying to yo aids or liing to the american public or misleading the american public. the concern that some around president trump have is that a lot of theseds same gro could be applied to president trump in the russia case. an i think that the fear amongst some is that if he is th

he didn't apply national rights theory or any other way that you might describe like gorsuch, neil gorsuchis dedicated to and so it really depends on how it fit into his view of the world in certain cases the structural protection be that federalism, separation of powers was important and he was a key vote on the obamacare case, for example, fully in line with striking it all down but in other examples, race versus gonzÁlez, the federal government can regulate plants that you grow in your own backyard, medical marijuana. paul: all right, fair enough. there's inconsistency there. in the balance i would say he did strike -- he did tend to support cases that helped a clear definition of the separation of powers. but i want to talk about nile gorsuch, first year on the court, very important term. howhow do you think he did? >> i think he did really well. he very quickly has become my favorite justice. he's the only ph.d on the court and his approach is very philosophical, first principles oriented. you sauna his opinion in carpenter versus united states relating to whether the police need a wa

that nominee was neil gorsuch. and i have to say president trump hit a home run with justice gorsuch. i came to this floor nearly a dozen times in support of justice gorsuch's nomination because i knew neil gorsuch and i knew what kind of a judge he would be. i knew he would interpret the constitution according its original meaning, not according to the pet theories of liberal law professors or liberal activists. i knew he would give effect to the plain text of statutes rather than running around to find bits and pieces of legislative history to support his preferred view. and i knew he would hold the administration -- the administrative state to task and help check the unrestrained growth of the unelected, unaccountable fourth branch of government. justice gorsuch has done all that, and more. he has shown himself to be an independent thinker who faithfully applies the text of the constitution and the text of statutes. he's shown that is perfectly be comfortable every -- comfortable disagreeing with the administrat

people of justice gorsuch. that is a difficult issue for those democratic senators saying this is where i will put down my marker on the resist trump thing. other issues may be, but we will have to see a lot of democrats who feel they have to vote for someone who will be a nominee. niels: how much are you prepared to spend in support, and will you disclose your donors to tell the public who is behind the ads? carrie: we spent $10 million during the gorsuch campaign. i don't want them to spend another $10 million, but we are ready to do that and ordered we see the need. i see this heating up. we do not have to legally disclose our donors. we have an obligation to them. in a world of red hens and maxine waters all of the attacks , we have seen, particularly on conservatives and members of the administration, i feel like i have a duty to my donors to give them confidentiality. we have seen the demand from the other side to attack these people. same position, they don't disclose their donors either. it is a common

this is something gorsuch just rejects. he says giving third rights access to your papers is not the same thing as consenting to -- for the government to search the same papers. and here, none of these -- neither the opinion or the dissents, none of them go into detail on informant doctrine. i'm very surprised by this because informant doctrine actually is what led to the third party doctrine in the first place. so the stool is not complete. they've only looked at two of the legs, they've looked at locational information and they've looked at the third party data. they have not looked at informant doctrine and how informant doctrine has evolved. i'll say one more word about that before i conclude in just a moment. so the third critique that gorsuch raises is clarity. that in idea that we have third party doctrine because it is clear who has then ownership over those records and whether you've lost privacy or not. it keeps us from falling in to this factorial trap that the opinion lays out in this precisely that kind ever fa

gorsuch 50. other possible nominees, kavanaugh is 53. -- guest: there are interesting parallels in the age -- the folks on the left of the court and the democratic leadership in congress as well. it sort of feels like democrats are bumping up against things in both congress and on the supreme court. i think all of this is by design, at least when it comes to potential nominees. yesterday atpotted lunch, rudy giuliani, andrew giuliani, sean hannity, eating lunch with the president in new jersey. guest: this is the one caveat of all the vetting and things that go through the white house counsel's office. obviously, the president has a zone outside kitchen cabinet folks. those are the people harder to engage. he is hearing it from a multitude of folks, including folks with big cable news platforms. his attorney, rudy giuliani. he asks everybody about the big decisions that are coming up before him, a special es like the spirit we have heard some things about who these folks are leaning towards and h

nominee was neil gorsuch. and i have to say president trump hit a home run with justice gorsuch. i came to this floor nearly a dozen times in support of justice gorsuch's nomination because i knew neil gorsuch and i knew what kind of a judge he would be. i knew he would interpret the i knew he would interpret the constitution according to its originalor meeting not according to the theories of liberal law professors or activists. i knew that he would give effect to the plaintext of statutes rather than running around dividing the bits and pieces of legislative history does the porch of his preferred view and he would hold the administration to task to help test the unrestrained growth of the unelected unaccountable fourth branch of government. he's done all thate. and more. when the administration advances and most of all he understands deeply under the constitution cn for political power lies withur the people and their elected representativesta bought nine justices in washington, d.c.. in all the ways he's been a home run. he's been an independent committed to the constitution

carrie: we spent $10 million during the gorsuch campaign. i don't want to have to spend another $10 million, but we are ready to do that and more if we see the need. i see this heating up. we do not have to legally disclose our donors. we have an obligation to them. and theld of red hands kinds of attacks we have seen, particularly on conservative members of the administration, i feel like i have a duty to my donors to give them confidentiality. we have seen the same group on the left that just started up to attack these nominees. same position, they don't disclose their donors either. position. a common c4 steve: but when you talk about attacks, doesn't the president bear some of that responsibility? he has been forceful and critical going against senator warren about the issue of her genes and heredity. doesn't he bear some of the responsibility? carrie: i don't think he said she should not be allowed to eat with her family in a restaurant. that is what i am talking about. personal harassment, that deserves no place in our political system

even last year voted to confirm justice gorsuch. when you have a nominee who is so well qualified, likable, evenhanded, has a history of listening to both sides of the argument and well respected, not necessarily well respected by democratic senators, but from people he had worked with closely and had argued a case before him. each of these potential nominees hands that. i think it would be hard for the democrats, particularly the three who voted for gorsuch, but many others up for reelection and states who went for trump, to vote against the nominee like that when their ultimate choice is an extreme party line that is something that will not be popular. it might play well in california, massachusetts, new york. i'm not sure how that plays in missouri, west virginia, indiana, florida. i think that will be a more difficult question. it is not like last year where they can say my constituents will forget what happened. it will be difficult to forget a vote in september for the november election. it is a time for choosing, and they hav

he was the runner up to gorsuch. there are all sorts of things that would favor gorsuch. kavanaugh is more controversial within the conservative base. i think that that makes one more reason why you want to go for somebody that's safe and easy. i don't think it has as much drama as gorsuch. which i thought it was best role in the presidency. but it has star significant. it's going to create a majority. >> one of the reasons i agree with david that it hasn't had as much drama as gorsuch, but there's been more chaos. gorsuch we had the sense that he made a decision and moved on. up until this morning and certainly over the weekend, we were hearing names coming up, going down, that et we weren't sure that he really knew who he was going to pick. >> why do you think interested that it you say hardiman. why do you think kavanaugh might be a problem? >> this has been fascinating because all four of these nominees are very conservative. they are going to be to the right of kennedy. but it's clear there's been a split among republican conservatives and who they like and there are

the result, justice gorsuch.ou think it's possible any republicans might flinch going into this or are you hearing that pretty much they're all going to be onboard? >> well, obviously there's a lot of work that needs to be done particularly with the more moderate members of the caucus. leader mcconnell is sensitive to that and allow that process to unfold. but i think you put your finger on really the most important underlying issue, beyond the significance of the nomination itself. that's the importance of who controls the senate. as leader mcconnell said, what you get to control is what gets considered and what doesn't. his decision to wait and allow a vacancy to remain so that president trump could nominate justice gorsuch last year, i think, was probably one of the key defining issues of his career, of the senate work. the importance in the senate, the role that it plays, usually kind of unexciting place to slow it down. right now, it's going to be center stage. it's going to play a very, very important role

as we saw with justice gorsuch, three democrats voted lester to confirm justice gorsuch. when you have a nominee that is so clearly well-qualified, likable, evenhanded, has a history listening to both sides of the argument, certainly in , peopleisan environment who he worked with closely recognize that. each of these potential nominees really has that and i think it would be very hard for those thecrats, particularly three who voted for gorsuch but many others who are up for reelection in states that went for trump, to vote against a nominee like that when there are and to viewoices, an extreme party line might not be popular. it might lay well in california, massachusetts, new york, that i'm not sure how that plays in missouri, indiana, florida, all these states, i think it will be much more difficult question. and it's not like last chair where they can think, my constituents are going to forget what happened between now and the election area -- now and the election. it's a time for choosing and they have to make that choice. >> is this different because the seat is dif

taking judge gorsuch as an example, i have every confidence that the president's nominee to the supreme court will be qualified, competent, and impartial in every way. and if the treatment of judge gorsuch is anything of the way things will be, i believe they will do everything they can to politicize the nomination process. they will do everything they can to malign the nominee no matter what his background or c.e.o.'s dengsal -- credentials and depicting him or her as an extremist who is outside the mainstream. they will press, prod, and pry to unearth an political agenda. they will bring all resources in order to bring a principled judge from taking justice kennedy's seat. they will pull out all of the stops to pull out the politicalization of the supreme court. we won't let them. mr. president, it's up to us to preserve the integrity of the judicial branch. we can begin by confirming a supreme court nominee who is committed to upholding the principles of the constitution at all costs and understands that the law-making power lies not with congress but with the courts. i look forward

gorsuch rejects this. consenting to give third-party access to private party papers remains your property, is not the same thing as consenting to search for the government to search the same papers. none of the opinions or defense go into detail on informing doctrine. i'm very surprised by this. informing doctrine is actually what led to the third-party doctrine in the first place. .he stool is not complete they have only looked at two of the lax, locational information and third-party data. they have not looked at enforcement doctrine and how that has evolved. i will say one more word about that before i conclude. the third critique that gorsuch raises is clarity. this idea that we have third-party doctrine because it is clear who has ownership over those records and whether you have lost privacy or not as a keeps us from falling into this factorial trap that the opinion lays out in this precisely factorial trap their justice gorsuch says it would be just as clear to say you have a fourth amendment intere

we've seen gorsuch on the bench. you've got republican moderates who are very concerned about the possible change, not only on roe v. wade, but on other issues, where, you know, when you saw gorsuch come in for scalia, that didn't change the balance of the court. what you're looking at now is a potential change of the balance of the court, becoming a more conservative court with the president's pick. and it could be a tough battle. >> melanie, you heard senator graham a minute ago on how roe v. wade will likely factor during this confirmation process. what signals will you be looking for from the left and the right for how this will play out? >> well, on the right, all eyes are going to be on lisa murkowski and susan collins, two republicans who support women's rights and they do not want to see this precedent of roe v. wade overturned. so it's going to be on them. democrats are going to lobby them. they're also going to try to raise fears about abortion rights being overturned and made illegal if a conservative just

the very fact that they put justice gorsuch on the court was telling because justice gorsuch is a kennedy clerk and might reassert kennedy that has -- his legacy would be secure if a similar person was put on the court. for talk of the next vacancy, the two names floated in the white house -- what do they have in common? both kennedy clerks. donald trump praised kennedy wholesomely in many ways, a lieu of what he called justice roberts, an absolute disaster. there was a connection between the trump and kennedy families. justice kennedy's son was a banker that worked with donald trump, and apparently moves in the same circles as donald trump sons. the ivanka trump showed up at the court last year at the invitation of justice kennedy. it did look like this was a concerted and effective effort to charm justice kennedy off the court. now, i believe justice kennedy said he retired when he won to spend more time with this -- his family, but nor did he betray any reluctance to stepped down under president who cuts a different profile that justice kennedy, who is sort of a little abstract, mild-m

iny much like neil gorsuch background and philosophy. the senate has confirmed neil gorsuch. i think we have 49 solid program life vote from that angle in the senate. we have collins and makowski on record voting for gorsuch before. i mean by the content of his intellect and background but i also mean because this senate has a record of confirming someone just like him. host: do you expect the hearings will directly focus on the issue of roe versus wade, the areas of individual liberty? guest: i have no doubt this will come up in every hearing. i have no doubt because we have .een through this before especially democratic senators will be asking those questions. pro-choice senators will be asking. there is no way a justice and answer that question ethically they cannot prejudge a case they might be -- that might be coming down the line. , as every other judge that's come before the committee, will get asked those questions because they are great pr but they will not elicit the responses the democratic senators are looking for. marjorie denon -- his nominee for the ninth justi

there are folks trying to sell their potential nominees as a gorsuch 2.0.o he has really been sort of the hallmark. and part of it is because donald trump sees this as a high point so far this presidency. it is something he wants to repeat. steve: let's talk about a couple of key senators. first, senator lisa murkowski. how critical is she going to be in the president's decision-making process? stephen: so there are two senators that this decision essentially comes down to. let's talk about the math. senator john mccain has been absent from the senate for this year. if we assume he will be absent again for, you know the rest of , the year or at least up until this supreme court vote, you are talking about a difference of flipping one republican senator from "yes" on the nominee to "no" on the nominee will be enough to defeat that nominee. so lisa murkowski and senator susan collins of maine, murkowski of alaska those are , the two republicans were most of the attention is being focused now. if either of them were to defect from the nominee, that would be en

gorsuch rejects this.consenting to give third-party access to private party papers that remain your property is not the same thing as consenting to search for the government to search the same papers. here, none of the opinions or defense go into detail on informant doctrine. i'm very surprised by this. informant doctrine is actually what led to the third-party doctrine in the first place. the stool is not complete. they have only looked at two of the legs -- locational information and third-party data. they have not looked at informant doctrine and how that has evolved. i will say one more word about that before i conclude. the third critique that gorsuch raises is clarity. this idea that we have third-party doctrine because it is clear who has ownership over those records and whether you have lost privacy or not as a it keeps us from falling into this factorial trap that the opinion lays out in this precisely factorial trap. justice gorsuch says it would be just as clear to say you have a fourth amendmen

we have seen what happened when now justice roberts, now justice gorsuch, and now justice alito have said that. once they got on the bench, they overturned precedent with alacrity to achieve their political goals. probably the worst -- citizens united. undidjustice roberts close to a century of tradition and allowed wealthy people to send millions of dollars undisclosed into our politics, making the swap so much worse. , justicerecently gorsuch, justice roberts, and the rest dramatically overturning precedent in the janus case on a whim as the pulled aoted they just a firstut of the hat, amendment ruling that the first amendment prohibited unions from organizing. my oh my. how can anyone believe they will judge kavanaugh will stick to precedent when justice roberts, justice gorsuch, and justice alito ignore precedent and make their own political rulings regularly? , we need to review the record , judge kavanaugh's written history, where the best clues of his jurisprudence may lie. it is no less than the standard my republican colleagues demanded of them judge kagan during her confirm

when the white house chose nile gorsuch they didn't call gorsuch, they called mr.they said would you like to call judge gorsuch and tell him the good news, that's what's going on here. federalist society is going through clearance process, make sure -- chris: i don't know about that fact, but let me just ask you, so what? i mean, the fact is the federalist society has vetted these people, they are all distinguished jurists, obviously conservative which you don't like but how can you say anybody on that list is out? >> i didn't say that. chris: chuck schumer said that. >> well, i can tell you that, i can tell you the chris wallace, second debate if that's what it was, question to president trump nailed it, the president is looking for someone who will overturn roe v. wade. he's looking for someone on the court who will make sure that they rule that the affordable care act's protection to those with preexisting conditions is unconstitutional. that'll mean thousands if not millions of americans will lose health insurance because of this decision on who will fill the k

he was the runner-up to neil gorsuch last year and served with the president's sister. and then judge kethledge from michigan. he says he enjoys working in his northern michigan cabin alone with no internet connection. that's a little slice of each. we'll have more on them in just a moment. president trump is choosing somebody to fill justice anthony kennedy's seat. he was a swing vote on many issues like abortion rights and gay rights. his retirement means the court will be split. so the president has a chance to give the conservatives a clear majority. as a result, this means that president trump's pick will likely face a very tough confirmation battle on the confirmation florida. the republicans have a razor thin majority. choosing a justice gives presidents a chance to leave a lasting legacy on the united states and affect millions of americans for many years to come. our chief white house correspondent john roberts is on fox's top story and live on the north lawn this afternoon. hi, john. >> good afternoon. breaking news here at the top of the hour. a source with k

those with longish memories that remember when neil gorsuch was nominated. the senate still had rules in place that allowed a 60-vote threshold for confirming a supreme court justice. along the way to gorsuch's confirmation, that filibuster threshold was done away with. that potential problem for president trump has gone away. a t does not mean that supreme court justice will be confirmed on a party line vote. the president has a handful of republicans that he needs to worry about. we think susan collins, lisa mccow ski, the two most moderate republicans who support abortion rights and jeff flake and bob corker, two senators who are retiring and emboldened. he needs to win those folks over. if he can't win those over, he needs to hope he can get at least the same three democrats that voted for neil gorsuch last time. and ansion, joe donnelly heidi of north dakota. host: joe crowley lost that seat. you tweeted about it in the victory of alexander ria cortez saying politicians face a rorschach test. what did you mean by that? how do you think democrats will ta

we pledged the same level of support for justice gorsuch and we showed we were able to do just that, to defend the president's nominee against unjustified attacks and will do so again, joined by judge kavanaugh's many other supporters, including those who do not share his political or judicial philosophy. i noted today a liberal law professor, akeel omar said that even liberals should support this nominee. you can read for yourself in "the new york times." the stake is too important to let unfair and inaccurate accusations be made about the nominee without correcting them. the american people deserve better. this nominee deserves better. the american people demand judges like brett kavanaugh who are fair and independent arbiters of the law. the basic problem is that in recent years, some of you, the court is a way to circumvent and evade the political process and achieve their preferred policy outcomes when judges pronounce from the bench some radical change in the law or public policy without the chance for voters to vote on that individual or on those policies. many have come to se

yes, it worked with judge gorsuch. even how justice kennedy got on the court in 1987, after robert bjork, after ginsburg go through their whole episodes. they're trying to formalize this to keep the president focused on a list of four to five people in the last week and to let him be at the golf club, work with a few aid enes, not make too many calls. >> the bjork and clarence thomas nominations were the least successful in execution. bjork the worst, of course, example in how it all played out. thank you so much. thanks to all of you so much for kicking us off today. >>> coming up -- gangster's paradise. secretary of state mike pompeo responding directly to north korea as the regime blasts the u.s. for using gangster-like diplomacy during high-level talks this weekend. >>> leon panetta is joining me next here on "andrea mitchell reports." stay with us. , we walk. carrying flowers that signify why we want to end alzheimer's disease. but what if, one day, there was a white flower for alzheimer's first survivor? what if

gorsuch, you might remember, during that rocky first half of his first year -- gorsuch was one of the moments that went off pretty well, whatever you think of him as a judge or as a nominee. that announcement went well compared to so many other things in the first six months of his presidency. and, look, i mean this is a president who we've made it to 9:01, and we still do not know for sure who it is. >> and there is the president. let's listen in. [ applause ] >> my fellow americans, tonight i speak to you from the east room of the white house regarding one of the most profound responsibilities of the president of the united states. and that is the selection of a supreme court justice. i have often heard that other than matters of war and peace, this is the most important decision a president will make. the supreme court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our republic -- the constitution of the united states. 12 days ago, justice anthony kennedy informed me of his decision to take senior status on the supreme court, opening a new vacancy. for more than four deca

we saw this with judge gorsuch as well. democrats, given the current state of their politics, are unwilling to defy their base and vote for well-qualified nominees so they find it a safer, political position for them to take to say they will oppose all nominees by president trump. but i agree with the leader that judge kavanaugh is an extraordinarily well-qualified judge. the reason why i think the left is so afraid of this nomination is they view the judiciary as a policy-making arm of the federal government. we disagree and we're in good company with people like james madison and alexander hamilton, and the founders, who viewed the judiciary as what they called the least dangerous branch because they aren't the policy-making arm of the government. it's congress and the executive branch. that's where policy needs to be made. so we need good judges, like neil gorsuch and like brett kavanaugh who will interpret the law as written, not as they would wish it to be or view themselves as a legislator wearing a black robe so they

and justice gorsuch sided with the liberals there. and at oral arguments, you sort of got a tea leaf about that because he like justice scalia doesn't like vagueness, particularly when it comes to criminal defendants. so you -- we sort of knew, okay, there's a good chance here that gorsuch would go with the liberals. but that wouldn't mean he was changing his jurisprudence. and, in fact, it was a move where he was following in the footsteps of justice scalia. and i wrote that, and you had to put that pretty high up because people were thinking who is this justice gorsuch. this is his first term on the bench. is he going to be a soll conservative or not. and even -- solid conservative or not. i got a note from one of my bosses, and i don't think i had done a good enough job saying, look, what is this? he sided with the liberals. it was very interesting. there's those things, too, on deadline that you have to look for. and in that instance you could be prepared for it because you knew it might come, but just when you were talking about

gorsuch, hest as excelled as a clerk for justice kennedy. [applause] >> judge kavanaugh has devoted his life to public service. for the last four years, he is served as a judge on the gc circuit court of appeals with great distinction authoring over 300 opinions which have been widely admired for the scale insight and rigorous adherence to the law. among those kids are more than a dozen that the supreme court has adopted as the law of the land. renowned as a judge, she is active in his community. basketball, serves males to needy families, and having learned from his mom who is a schoolteacher inducing, tutors children at local elementary schools. there is no one in america more qualified for this position and i one more deserving feared want to thank the senators on both sides of the aisle. this includes vividly qualified nominee deserves a swift confirmation and robust bipartisan support. the rule of law is our nations powdered itch. it is the cornerstone of our freedom. it is what guarantees equal justice and the senate, now has a chance

now along with justice himself, neil gorsuch. he helped write the camstar report and even investigated vince foster's death. he's also a marathon runner, so he will be ready to run the gauntlet on the hill. judge raymond kethledge is considered a d.c. insider. he likes to hunt and fish, and he often writes from a spot in the barn with no internet. he also has written a book and that mark ten years on the federal bench. judge amy kony barrett had a lot of tough questions from senators franken and durbin. they focus a lot on her devout catholic faith and it's quite a backlash from a lot of folks who said those questions were inappropriate. she was a clerk for justice antonin scalia, and she has a law professor and writer profession. judge thomas hardiman likes things from guns to religious liberty. he was a first and his family to graduate from college and he put himself through georgetown law school by driving a taxi. no matter whom the president picks, with senator mccain away from washington, the democrats are facing enormous pr

we saw three democrats vote for neil gorsuch. i think that's the ballpark of what we're looking at for brett kavanaugh. >> neil: we shall see. thanks, senator, a busy day for you. more after this including layest on the nato meeting coming up. when my hot water heater failed it rocked our world. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they took care of everything a to z. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. >> it's going to be an interesting time in the u.k. and certainly going to be an interesting time with nato. nato has not treated us fairly but i think we'll work something out. we pay too much and they pay too little. >> n

all five of them voted in favor of neil gorsuch the last time. this time for the president's nominee to lose four of them would have to change votes and vote against the president's nominee. that tells you right there how hard it is going to be for democrats to stop this nominee. they have to get four of them. three democrats and one republicans to turn their votes and the question is you supported neil gorsuch, why do you oppose this nominee from the president? >> bill: has there been any reporting? has the president talked personally with collins and murcowski on the phone to figure out who they would approve? >> the white house said the president spent time talking to lawmakers meaning in the senate on both sides of the aisle. so we know for example that the president actually had some of those democratic senators over to the white house last week to talk. by the way, all three of them heitkamp, manchin, and donnelly are facing reelection this year in states donald trump won. >> bill: we get to nato after today. i want to ask you about that be

justice gorsuch expressed the view that it was the problem. justices ginsburg and sotomayor would have upheld a decision across the board on the ground that this is a neutral rule of general availability. it is not compelling speech, and it is something a state legislature can pass, notwithstanding any religious objection that any individual might face. >> i want to ask if you have use, but i am curious about this. there was debate after the opinion came out about whether it was a narrow decision or a broader decision. arlene's flowers has been remanded for further proceedings about whether or not someone will go before one of the civil rights commissions to say we respect your views, and treat somebody civilly, not compare kkk to the nazis and members and still rule against them. i am wondering where you think this issue is going and if you think it is a broader decision or a narrow decision? >> i view this as a narrow decision. repeatedeted the relisting before the court suspectede case as i they had a hard time getting four votes. i suspect

last year, i nominated judge neil gorsuch to replace the late, great, justice antonin scalia. i chose justice gorsuch because i knew that he, just like justice scalia, would be a faithful servant of our constitution. we are honored to be joined tonight by justice scalia's beloved wife, maureen. thank you, maureen. both justice kennedy and justice scalia were appointed by a president who understood that the best defense of our liberty - and a judicial branch immune from political prejudice - were judges that apply the constitution as written. that president happened to be ronald reagan. for this evening's announcement, we are joined by ronald reagan's attorney general, edwin meese. you have 4 free articles remaining. subscribe to the times and i speak for everyone, thank you for everything you have done to protect our nation's great legal heritage. in keeping with president reagan's legacy, i do not ask about a nominee's personal opinions. what matters is not a judge's political views but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the constitution require. i

one of the judges with neil gorsuch.e dealing with tonight and trump again is turning to the list of 20 judges and working off of the list comes to the fore that we think we are dealing with. i say i think because he could surprise us. this white house is famously chaotic and constantly off message. always going off the rails and has a hard time with discipline. they have been remarkably disciplined for the last 12 days to narrow down that list 24 -- to 4. >> thank you so much. >>> coming up next, eight last chat with our political and legal analyst on the supreme court decision. we are more than an hour away from that fine dish -- that final announcement. we know sometimes taking a bath means just going for a swim. we know the great outdoors. we love the great outdoors. make this summer last during family summer camp at bass pro shops and cabela's. plus get great deals on great gear. like savings of 40% on finley river sandals for the whole family. and this lew's mach baitcast combo for under $80. bass pro shops and cab

we heard them from neil gorsuch. we heard them from now chief justice roberts, about adhering to established precedent. just a couple weeks ago we saw an established precedent 40 years old overturned by the court with roberts and gorsuch supporting that step. we know that these evasive canned rehearsed answers are absolutely meaningless when they are accompanied by refusals in response to my questions and others to state that brown v. board of education was correctly decided or roe v. wade was correctly decided or loving versus virginia, or bergapel or other established principles of law. sought answer to your question is no more business as usual, no more deferential or courteous acceptance of these phony platitudes. >> that sounds like it would make for interesting hearings one way or the other. senator blumenthal, thank you for some time tonight. >> thank you. >> harry lipman, former assistant deputy general. he clerked for justice kennedy on the supreme court. and vinta gupta. former assistant attorney general at

trump said he would like to pick a same mold as gorsuch. are you figuring out how to keep them in the republican camp when it comes down to this vote? >> i'm not. dana, i think the thing that we all should want is judges that haven't made up their mind about issues before they take the bench and listen to the case, listen to the arguments and the lawyers and make their decision. we know no matter who the president nominates, particularly out of this group of four, it's traditional judges. people that, people that understand the limited by important role that judges have, primarily not as policy makers but people that will respect precedent and people that are unafraid to vote their principles, too. so i don't think any one of these four that the president is considering now is -- should be a cause for concern for any of my colleagues. >> dana: as shannon said, even with neil gorsuch, there's liberals on the left and democrats already lining up to say that they would not support this nominee no matter what. the messages battle will heat up.

to now as a justice neil gorsuch? >> neil gorsuch is exactly who he has been since the time i first met him when he was 37 years old. he is the same person, he had a tenure record on the bench. he has been on the supreme court a little over a year. his rulings have come out the way everyone said they word. they are not conservative or liberal.they stay in line with the law. as a result that is a kind of judge the president said he was looking for. he got neil gorsuch and i think that is what he will have with the next nomination. >> was the big what if you are telling us right now that it doesn't matter if they are more leaning or conservator or not. it kind of doesn't matter. why then, is the president very much focused on a list of candidates who are conservative? why does it matter then? why not broaden the scope? >> it is important point. the reason why is our very different views about how judges do their job. some believe judges job is to interpret the law, not in line with text but also with their on personal l

year of neil gorsuch on the bench. this one's just under 90 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] >> good morning. we welcome those who are joining us on the heritage.org website on all these occasions, for the in-house guests, we ask the last courtesy check that the mobile devices have been silenced or turned off. and those watching online are welcome to send questions or comments anytime e-mailing , speaker @heritage.org and we'll post today's program on the heritage home page for everyone's future reference as well. leading our discussion is john malcolm who serves in three capacities. he's vice president of the constitutional government institute, he's director of the me center for legal and judicial studies and serves as the gilbertson and sherry gilbertson senior legal fellow. prior to joining us at heritage, he was a deputy assistant attorney general at doj and has been executive vice president at the motion picture association of america as well as the general counsel at the u.s. com