use.d good he went to the same prep school that justice gorsuch 12. i was told that they went to the same school at the same time. , is that one's objective is to be a man for others. worku look the life and and character of judge kavanaugh , you can see that it's always about others. yale, heted from clerked in the third circuit, and then he declared for the man who he will be -- would be .eplacing he served as the associate counsel of the white house, what many regard as the second highest court in the land, the court of appeals of the district of columbia. during his time on the bench, he has been called the judges judge , stunning 39 of his 48 clerks of gone on to clerk at the supreme court. his peers and see him as a thought leader, his opinions are cited by courts across the country, and the supreme court morendorsed his opinions than a dozen times. i think that for the round of applause. is -- is worth a round of applause. credibilityord of on the bench, he is 307 opinions , andy prove his intellect you can see he has a judicial philosophy. he

when gorsuch was nominated, three democrats voted in favor. the presumption is those three will be likely in favor again, but we could get a couple additional votes as well. spot.are in a good there has been great momentum for judge kavanaugh already. rand paul came out in support this last week. concerns on privacy issues, and before that, strong conservatives had supported him, so he has been meeting with republicans and the republican caucus has been very united when it has come to judicial nominations. a lot of people do not know this, but senator susan collins of maine, and senator lisa murkowski of alaska, have devoted 100% of the time for president trump's judicial nominees. we have a strong record of support, and we have no reason to believe the republican side is not going to be unified in support for kavanaugh and the question is what the red state democrat senators will do. they came over. i want to share some polling results from those red states. , 60% of voters say judge kavanaugh should be confirmed. only 22 against. in west vir

and in the early days of his tenure, justice gorsuch has proven himself.e has proven himself with the trust the president has placed in him and in his commitment to the constitution and the principles of limited government, president trump and i could not be more proud of of justice gorsuch. [applause] we also cannot be more proud of the next justice, judge kavanaugh. [applause] i don't have to tell members of the republican national lawyers association that he has impeccable qualifications, but i'm going to anyway. [laughter] the word needs to get out. it's a critical time. in the process of confirmation in the senate. and the opportunity to gather before you and pay attention to what we already know about this jurist is a timely and good use. judge brett kavanaugh went to the same prep school that produced justice neil gorsuch. i was told that they went to the same school at the same time. the motto of that school that judge kavanaugh has reflected on is that one's objective is to be a man for others. as you look at the life and work and character of jud

confirmation process for neil gorsuch. now we have brett cavanaugh's confirmation coming up next week. if i could, what are your expectations for that and timing of a replacement for mccain seat is going to be crucial. >> it is. i think this is an excellent nomination by the president. i will expect he will be confirmed before the election. tremendously qualified both in education and experience. just like justice gorsuch, i think you will have a strong votes and it will be a bipartisan vote. >> sandra: i'm so sorry for your loss. he was a friend and mentor to you. thank you for coming on. >> thank you for having me on. my heart goes out to his family. what a wonderful group of peop people. >> sandra: thank you. joining us now, john kyle who was mccain's colleague from arizona in the u.s. senate from 1995 until to 2013. he's been discussed as a possible replacement. thank you for coming on. you join us by phone. could you share with us your thoughts this morning.

he did not vote a neil gorsuch so we do not a where he stands. we have been doing advertisements about judge kavanaugh in alabama. and the other three states in addition to washington d.c.. >> i do want to talk about two other things sort of more broadly here. >> i have no for a bit but they chose and he has taken up the advisors that he could do this with the american people and you should see that. >> now we can see those numbers are moving on up just this week. and now moving onto the circuit court. and to see them advance in their career. and that i would think those future candidates for president would be looking at the future years. and to be institutionalized. >> we saw how that plays. and with trumps legacy on judges. and with those appellate court judges just for a second looking at why the senate is so important i don't think we will lose the senate but if we were that would stop i've a a 15-year-old daughter, children daughter and an 8-year-old son. when justice cavanaugh serves on the supreme court it is when my children will have gr

and we should not take it lightly, if you remember the nomination and confirmation of justice neil gorsuchwhich we celebrated and we worked so hard for, what the replacement of justice an on -- antonin scalia so you are basically replacing a strong constitute -- constitutional list with constitutionalist. we were trying to preserve the status quo. you heard from the panel before, hillary was sure she was going win and going to get to nominate scalia's replacement and just with this issue being at the forefront, majority mcconnell putting it on ballot, let the american people make their voices heard with their vote and then with canned at a -- candide donald trump reassuring conservatives was amazing turn of effects that nobody could have predicted at the time and that gave us the amazing opportunity to put justice neil gorsuch in supreme court but now you are getting to replace what has been determined by everybody the swing vote. even though many media outlets want to portray as conservative the reality is that he did not help a strong constitutionalist view as we would call it. he would

we then end up in the same place as we did with justice kagan and justice gorsuch. material restricted by the statute is held committee confidential. while nonrestricted material is released to the public. i would like to add that all documents that we have received including committee confidential are at this very moment available to every member of the senate my staff is happy to make these documents available to any senator interested in reviewing them. my friends on the other side of the aisle complain then a lawyer by the name of phil bourque rather than the national archives is deciding what is considered restricted. that's not true at all. the archives have been reviewing judge kavanaugh's e-mails as i requested. these archivists are public employees on they have informed president bush and president trump that in the opinion of the professional arc files staff, nearly two thirds of these public servants have reviewed thus far contain restricted material that should not be released to the public. that means, under the same standard applied to justice kagan an

this is entirely consistent with justices sotomayor and kagan and gorsuch. hearings for those nominees occurred 48 or 49 days after the president's announcement. we continue to hear new lines of attack developing, or i should say trying to develop. one i heard involved judge kavanaugh's role as a staff secretary in the white house, an important job to be sure, but one more like a traffic cop, in this case for documents, than a substantive policymaker. as staff secretary he didn't contribute to the documents, he didn't make the policy articulated in the documents, he just made sure they made their way properly vetted through the white house to the president for signature. that's what the staff secretary does. others have said they wonder what role judge kavanaugh played in developing administration policy regarding detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists. well, i'll answer that for them. the answer is none. well, we've heard a few other objections being tos sed around, and i will address those in the coming days and weeks. but today i think the la

doing that beingjustice gorsuch considered by the committee. i do not recall complaints of , documents.yer's director ofnal president clinton's enactment to a person who helped fix things for the white house and longtime ceo of the clinton foundation review justice kagan's documents. leslie kiernan, also prominent in democratic party politics, review justice sotomayor's documents before the senate received them. individuals could review nominees documents, before producing them to the senate, i think it is perfectly legitimate for mr. burke to do that as well. so i do not see rationale behind the criticism. the following nominees will be held over. nelson, ninth circuit, richard sullivan, second serve -- second circuit, gary brown, east district of new york, to the eastern, district, new york, eastern district of new york, rachel eastern district of new york, lewis, southern district, new york, john o'connor, northeastern and western districts of oklahoma. johnson a truck, western district of new york, and mary. southern district of new york. j

this is a longer time than we had for justices kagan and gorsuch. this longer time is how, this is a time and another example that this is the most transparent confirmation process of all time. in 12 years on the d.c. circuit, judge kavanaugh issued more than 300 opinions and hundreds more. as senator schumer and way he said at the justice's confirmation hearing, in nominee's judicial record is the best way to evaluate a nominee. judge kavanaugh also submitted more than 17,000 pages with his bipartisan judicial committee questionnaire, and that happens to be the most robust questionnaire given to a nominee. we have also received to enter -- nearly 250,000 pages of documents from judge kavanaugh's service in the executive branch. this is already more than any previous supreme court nominee, with many more documents yet to come. most already publicly available and we are working to make the vast majority of them publicly available as quickly as possible. we had plenty of time to review all of these materials before the hearing. the majority staff has

gorsuch is young. so these guys will be around for a long time keeping the court conservative. >> neil: real quickly, is it still a given at this point that they can get this done in a timetable that mitch mcconnell has outlined? they want this decided this fall. >> they want it all decided. i wouldn't say it's a given. democrats are doing everything that they can to delay, delay, delay. great news for democrats if they didn't have to do this until after the election, but republicans are pushing. the major thing is that kavanaugh has a ton of documents to go through. like a million. literally a million. so democrats are saying they want to review all of those. republicans are saying a lot of those are from his time in the bush white house and they're simple e-mails back and forth, democrats don't need to look at those. so there's this back and forth over documents right now. the longer it takes to release documents, the longer they can push back. right now the hearings are set for beginning of septembe

like supreme court justice neil gorsuch, who is doing a great job, and judge brett kavanaugh, who we are trying to get through right now.

gorsuch and tell him the good news. to say that the federal society play critical role in the selection of a nominee is an understatement. if you don't clear their background tests. their litmus test you cannot be considered by the trump administration for the supreme court. that's offensive to me. you don't see reference to the federalist society for the heritage institute in the united states constitution. to get to any special interest group, light rafter center, that kind of authority is beyond what our founding fathers imagined would be the process for selecting someone for the supreme court. that gets more complicated. before we consider nominee to the supreme court we have to review their records. it takes time. literally scores of lawyers sit down and go through the published opinions and speeches and other documents which evidence a person's background. when it comes to brett kavanaugh, it's an extensive background. he said at the role at the highest government for years. the kenneth starr commission, the gore

gorsuch and tell him the good news. so to say that the federalist society and heritage institute play a critical role in the selection of a nominee is an understatement. if you don't clear their background test, their litmus test, you cannot be considered by the trump administration for the supreme court. that's offensive to me. you don't see any reference to the federalist society or the heritage institute in the united states constitution. there is a clear reference to a president, elected by the people of the united states, but to give to any special interest group, right, left, or center, that kind of authority is way beyond what our founding fathers imagined would be this process for selecting someone from the supreme court. but then it gets even more complicated. before we consider a nominee for the supreme court, we have to carefully review their records. it takes time. literally scores of lawyers sit down and go through the published opinions and speeches and other documents which evidence a person's background,

we ao hear democrats pointing to justice gorsuch who used the same standard saying he saw roe assetled law, but democrats like chris kountze today pointed out gorsuch voted to overturn a 197m su court case about labor law. t gorsuch did vo overturn that, so democrats are concerned that, whether it's settled law, these justices could be willing to overturn them. >> woodruff: joan biskupic, you as somebody who's been altching the no nomination processes, first o when a nominee speaks about something being settled law, is that something we take to the bank? >> no. (laughter) nds nice, it is nice and justices -- judicial nominees repeatedly say it, but it's just sort of stating the obvious, frankly, that if you have a precedent from 1973, which is whenoe v wade made abortion legal nationwide, of course it's settled, and then in 1992 the court reaffirmed that. but as lismentioned, the supreme court has overturned precedent, four-decade-old precedent. >> woodruff: right. and i think what he's doing we've seen through the years is a nominee sort of trying out some lines. when he meets with a

than a week longer from the announcements and hearings from the last three justices soto meyer kagan gorsuch. the senate has already received more documents from judge kavanaugh's time in the executive branch that we differ many previous supreme court nominee. we have so far received more than 184,000 pages of documents, which more than 124,000 are currently publicly available by anybody in the country going to a judiciary committee.senate.gov the team of lawyers who work for the majority have already reviewed 2000 pages of the 307 judicial opinions that judge kavanaugh will come along with hundreds more opinions that he joined his 12 year service on the d.c. circuit. the team of lawyers who work for the majority have already reviewed 110 pages of written answers and over 17000 pages of material that judge kavanaugh submitted to the committee in response to bipartisan questionnaire the most robust questionnaire ever submitted to a supreme court nominee. the team of lawyers who worked for the majority has already reviewed every page of the more than 184,000 pages of e-mails and other records

i thought gorsuch was fun. this is even more fun. my bottom line is if you are hoping for a deconstruction of the administrative state as steve bannon said, you will be disappointed. judge kavanaugh is someone who cares deeply about administrative law and regulatory practice. in fact, some of the claims you are seeing are a little bit fun. in the "washington post" last week a law professor said, "this , is the end of the regulatory state as we know it. if judge kavanaugh goes up there, they will never find a regulation that is acceptable." that's just not an accurate reading of the record. we have a very substantial record here. he has over a dozen years on the court. he has written over 120 decisions that deal with administrative law. what we will not see a deconstruction of the administrative state, not to bury the lead but judge kavanaugh is someone who will reign in the administrative state or to a tighter leash. you will see that and i will sketch that out in two different contexts in the time i have remaining to give you a sens

first release of documents which will be equivalent to the document that are submitted for judge gorsuch. idea, if you were , -- stack up -- [indiscernible] i think it is more than enough for the democrats to make a rational decision about supporting judge kavanagh. here is the reality. people who are asking for the documents oppose judge kavanagh. some of them had a fill in the blank opposition. take a look at these comments. these are the people who are most vocal about asking for documents. i am glad the chairman grassley took that step to provide this release. with that and i will turn it over to chair grassley. senator grassley: i guess there is nothing that demonstrates that a picture is worth a thousand words, then what you see here. obviously, our committee's responsibility is to evaluate judge kavanaugh's nomination and his record. as we do with every supreme court nominee, we were not doing anything less. as you to have a fair can see, demonstrated by the material that will be available for the supreme court nominee, it is probably the deepest dive we have had into the backgrou

he also is a former clerk for justice gorsuch and former doj official.o see you jamil. >> nice to see you, harris. >> harris: something the u.s. supreme court there is no politics. but, when you have democrats refusing except for a couple to sit down with judge kavanaugh there are politics in play. democrats in red states, not just red states but trump territory as we have seen the president step in on some races he can have on effect. what do you make about -- what do you make of judge kavanaugh's chances in terms of at least getting more democrats to talk to him or should that even be the goal? >> well, look, he should get everybody to talk to him. is he obviously a highly qualified nominee. been on the bench for over a decade. 300 opinions, thousands of pages of material. all the democrats should be meeting with him and seeing whether or not he is the kind of nominee vote for. shocking all have you is red state democrats willing even to have a conversation with him senate do its job and consider the nominee particularly considering the position. >> ha

she voted against justice gorsuch and appealing obamacare. she voted against tax --. she's looking for the confirmation of judge kavanagh. we do know where she is on that. believe. hard to how she is going to go back to her constituents. someone who is fall this pattern. how would he go back to their constituents and say i want to washington, i worked in your behalf. when, that is a clear signal of 2016. for both parties, 2016 was distinctly not about partisanship. both parties, whether was the candidacy of bernie sanders or that donald trump, both parties had been tired with washington. hown 2018, you mentioned --. the priorities of races. are some races, you look at arizona and mississippi, where there could be republicans in the general election, who are not desirable for major responsibilities from the republican party. races that they could not play in. mississippi,n writing off this type of races, not playing as much of those? >> from a political action standpoint, we are focused on the democrats. the primary processes, other looking at the democrat primary proc

mcgahn has played a key role in shaping the president's pick including supreme court justice neil gorsuch and now nominee kavanaugh. sources close to mcgahn tell cbs news he was surprised by the tweet. there is speculation the president was upset with mcgahn's 30-hour interview with special counsel robert mueller. mcgahn was involved in discussions that could be key if mueller's team looks to build an obstruction of justice case against president trump. >>> time now 4:42. a california man on probation caught with a 3d printed gun inside his home. why police could not arrest him. while other burger places serve the same old stuff, i'm the only one that has the bowls to serve something different. i mean, just look at my teriyaki bowls. choose from steak or chicken, covered in teriyaki sauce, plus your choice of white or brown rice. what about these bowls jack? hey! you got some pretty nice bowls there. and so does dan! thanks jack! those are some nice bowls. everyone's gonna want to get their hands on jack's bowls. try my bowls! see that right there? you can't say that. what? i was just say

if he has to subpoena president trump, would supreme court justice neil gorsuch have to recuse himself interesting question. gorsuch, in the sense that formally from a legal ethics standpoint, there's no formal reason to recuse himself because this person appointed him. on the cavanagh one, interesting because he has written a lot about executive authority and the president. so, you could make a claim that maybe he should recuse himself if it got down to that. i think formally, with both of them, the answer is no. as i said with cavanagh, it might be more compelling. >> doug, what do you think is better, to sit down with mueller or have him subpoenaed? >> from the standpoint of the defense, you mean? no, at this point, it's clear he shouldn't voluntarily sit down. that forces the hand with the subpoena. as you have heard people say, and they are right, it sets up a legal showdown and tracks back to your question a minute ago into the midterm elections. mueller may walk away from that. the better course is to simply, ultimately not agree, use the pr spin, i wanted to go in, my lawyer sa

>> i think we look at the neil gorsuch confirmation.idi heitkamp. those are the three democrats that they really should be voting for republican initiatives because she is a red state. but has not done so thus far. we will see what happens going forward. mike: is a dilemma for chuck schumer? if those democrats lose he gets further away from being majority leader, right? >> you would think so but senator schumer hasn't shown anyone that is really build bridges across party is trying to make common cause. he has led some democrats on occasion and rarely, what republican and since the statement at the same time, he really has not tried to work hard enough on the kavanaugh nomination. mike: estimate who work in the senate, softly with supreme court confirmations, how brutal do you expect this to get? do you expect some of these democrats thinking about running for president in 2020 may get a little feisty? >> i certainly think that there is opportunity for grandstanding. we so that in the neil gorsuch accommodation. we were likely to see th

she voted against justice gorsuch and against repealing obama care, against the tax cuts and jobs act. now, it is looking like the confirmation of judge kavanagh,. we don't really know where she is on that i find it really hard -- we don't really know what she that. i find it hard to understand how she will go back to her constituents, or even someone like bill nelson, in florida, how they will go back to their constituents and say, yes i may to washington -- i went to washington and made a difference on your behalf. there was a clear signal in 2016, for both parties, i think 2016 was distinctly not about partisanship. both parties, whether it was the bernient candidacy of sanders or that of donald trump, both parties were tired of washington as usual. >> something is about 2018, you mentioned how you obviously do not train your fire on republicans at all or anything like that. races,rioritization of you look at arizona, mississippi, brother could be republicans in the general election who are not necessarily desirable for major slots of the republican party. mcconnell allies, people

justice gorsuch said he would obey precedent and totally reversed resident on the janus case and many others. because they know that if they actually stated their views to the american people, they would be defeated. our job is to try to get those out and we will keep at it. last question. >> [indiscernible] >> let me say this, i asked , regardless of what president bush or people in the room with him said, would he commit to not going to a hearing until the documents are reached. you said you were a fair-minded come about person in any fair-minded balance person would agree that we ought to have the documents particularly when he could not remember almost anything that happened when he and when he was secretary. he would not commit. >> [indiscernible] >> we have to keep at it in the ways we have been and i think what i heard today should really upset large numbers of the american people. you can try it again. >> [indiscernible] the fact that michael cohen said he broke finance laws on behalf of donald trump, does that have any effect? havedge kavanaugh seems to the most expanded view

harvardustice gorsuch, law school. number one in his class. want to oxford, top student.is what we want. great people. people.he-line, smart people with the highest test score. i want people with high test scores. does that make sense? i want people of high scores, so do you. so we have a great person and brett kavanaugh and i think it's working out for well but we need 100% of the vote. won by for 40 i or 30 points. it could be great democrats. but on the assumption, they do talk. if you have them say nicer things about me than any republican. a couple of them compare me to some of the greats. abe lincoln, honest day. no, no, they say great things. and i tell the people. , it isthe people, i say wonderful that they say nice things but they are never going to give us the vote. they never. say bad things about me, but give the vote. i'm not just talking about the vote on the justices. i'm talking about drugs on other things, highways, infrastructure, the wall, border security. i need the vote. we will never get the vote. the only way will get the vote as we need more repub

justice gorsuch said he would obey precedence and totally reverse precedent on the janice case and many others. so, they dodge it because they know if they stated their views to the american people they would be defeated. our job is to try to get those out. [inaudible question] >> i asked judge kavanaugh, regardless of what president bush are the people in the room with him said, would he commit to not going to a hearing until the documents are reached. i said you said you are fair-minded balanced person. any person would agree that we ought to have the documents. particularly when he couldn't remember anything when he was counsel and secretary. he would not commit. >> we just have to keep at it in the waste we have been. what i heard today should upset large numbers of the american people. [inaudible question] one of the worries we greatly have is that judge kavanaugh seems to have the most expanded view of any nominee i've ever come across. so yes, it is very frightening that judge kavanaugh had to comply. i asked him so even so you would not jeopardize national security. >> we think

and one of them was probably the most essential person getting neil gorsuch confirmed. she walked to every office and helped prepare for every briefing. i know that's a difficult extra burden that she has to deal with. the perception of colleagues or others outside the white house who view it as - - in some cases. all i can encourage you guys is to know what's in your own hearts and to continue to fight for things you believe in. they know how powerful and attack it is. doesn't make it right. but there is a reason 63 million people voted for donald trump. tranny... >> i want to provide and some of you might criticize tuesday even a pathway to citizenship to bring the debate to congress democrats said that's what we thought that now we expand that population to talk about that the conservative feel that the parents broke the law bringing the children across the border. but we don't even consider that? and then to consider that. and with that diversity lottery program doesn't make sense. and those where workers are needed. and it is chain migration. so those were commonse

we got gorsuch. and also we can't stand to be associated with this guy any more. we just can't stand -- >> is it worth the effort this cycle? >> are they going to go back? it almost doesn't matter how many of those people exist if the people who are against trump, people who are on the left are so much more willing to vote against him and mobilize. >> i just don't see that rank and halfticollege-educated republicans, if they're caught in traffic, i'm not breaking a sweat for this guy right now. >> i think that's right, and i think unfortunately the fact that we're talking about this -- even if a bigger percentage of the electorate says this is washington, this is trump, surrounded with bad people, didn't know, they justified the whole thing. we have a booming economy. we have low unemployment. we have record minority employment. >> by the way, where would we be if -- >> he would be out of office, they would have impeached him. >> it's higher than ronald reagan, bill clinton and some of the boom years. based on historical trends, based on economic numbers, donald t

law school, same thing with justice gorsuch. top at harvard. number one in his class.t to oxford. top student. this is what we want. we want great people, we want really top-of-the-line smart people here and i want people with the highest test scores. i like high test scores. i want them. i want people, so do you. in brettomebody great cavanagh. i think it is working out well. we need 100% of the vote. we have a couple places where i won by a 30, 40 points. it could be they come vote for senators, democrats, could be. we will see what happens. on the assumption that they don't, because they do talk. a fuse a nicer things about me than any republican. a couple of them compare me to some of the greats. i'm talking about abe lincoln, on the state. -- honest abe. they say great things. say, it ispeople, i wonderful they say nice things but they will never give us the vote. we need the vote. say bad things about me but to give the vote. i am not just talking vote on justices. i'm talking boats on a lot of other things including highways and infrastructure and the wall, add

all we've really done this year is confirm neil gorsuch to the supreme court. our health care insurance system is a mess. we all know it. those who support obamacare and those who oppose it. something has to be done. we republicans have locked for a way to end -- have looked for a way to end it and replace it with something else without paying a terrible political price. we haven't found it yet and i'm not sure we will. all we've managed to do is make more popular a policy that wasn't very popular when we started trying to get rid of it. i voted for the motion to proceed to allow debate to continue and amendments to be offered. i will not vote for this bill as it is today. it's a shell of a bill right now. we all know that. i have changes urged by my state governor that will have to be included for my support of final passage of any bill. i know many of you will have to see the bill change ?anl for you to -- substantially for you to support it. we try to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, then sprin

are telling him what to do, not the father, but the sop, yes, s, they have no on kavanaugh, no on gorsuch, no on massive tax cuts, casey and the group, they want to end the tax cuts and increase your taxes, that does not play well. somehow that does not play too well. you know what else he was no obiggest thing that only really the business people in this room appreciate. he was no on regulation cutting. we had regulations that made it impossible to do business in this country. highways would take 21 years to get approved. we have it down to two years, it will be one year shortly. [cheers and applause] very shortly. and you know what. we want clean, beautiful water. we want crystal clear air. we want our air to be the best it is, right now it is the best it has ever been. but you don't have to go through 97 different approvals over 20 year period, we may reject plenty. but we'll reject them in a year that can go on to something else. we're not going to take them down the line 20, 21 years then have you a three to two vote against the project. where people work their whole lives to get it

justice gorsuch has been a star. the economy is doing better than ever in history. the only thing is that the press is not cover me fairly. they killed me during the campaign, just killed me. i said "one good thing about winning, i have shown them, so now i will get fair press." guess what? it is worth. i would honestly give myself an a+. host: a+ the president gave himself in that fox interview. this is the president writing, michael cohen's attorney clarified the record, saying he did not know about the trump tower meeting, out of which came nothing. the answer that i did not -- not in capital letters -- know about the meeting, just another phony story by the fake news media. james is next. caller: i live in newark, new jersey. i plan on joining christian united, the organization. i am republican. trump to say this year -- is doing a good job. think the democrats are going to try to railroad this man. they are going to try to make it look -- make him look like he is the bad guy, which he is not, you know. he has been good for our military and keeping it strong and

and all we have really done this year is confirm neil gorsuch to the supreme court. the health care insurance system is a mess. we all know it. those who support obama care and those who oppose it. something must be done. republicans have looked for a way to replace it with something else without paying a political price. we have not found it yet, and i am not sure we will.we have only managed to make more popular policy that wasn't very popular when we started trying to get rid of it. i voted for the motion to proceed to allow amendments. i will not vote for the bill as it is today. it is a shell of a bill right now, we all know that. i have changes that must be included to earn my support of final passage of any bill. you will have to see the bill change substantially before you support it. we tried to do this by coming up with a proposal behind closed doors in consultation with the administration, and springing it on skeptical members, trying to convince them it is better than nothing. it is better than nothing? asking us to swallow our doubts for unified oppositi

it's quite similar to a opinion from the supreme court written by justin -- by justice gorsuch. that the standard should be clear enough. not crystal clear, but a clear enough standard. the first way you will see differ -- a justice perhaps from his former boss is, he is much more of a textual list. he will find statutes unambiguous which will lead to less room to maneuver. the net neutrality regulation and the dissent from denial. justice kavanagh on the first half of that decision explains at length his approach to the major questions doctrine. that is an exception to chevron deference. this exception got a lot of the fanfare in the obamacare challenge that made it to the supreme court. roberts, writing for a six justice majority applied it and said, when it comes to statutory ambiguity said invoke eight major political or economic question, we will not defer to the agency. here, you are asking us to defer to the irs about how to regulate billions of dollars in the health market. that's a major question. the irs does not have the expertise. but chief justice roberts found a wa

was number one in his class at harvard, gorsuch wasn't close. not to mention his most glaring lie of all, saying don, jr. is wonderful. with his tendency too cheat on facts it is no wonder trump's lawyers don't want the president to sit down for an interview with special counsel robert mueller and the folks on fox news agree. >> how in the world could he ever cooperate and sit down with mueller for an interview knowing that if you tell one lie to bob mueller he will move to file charges. >> stephen: well, this sounds crazy, but hear me out, he could not lie. (laughter). >> stephen: by his lawyers know that is not an option, just ask man in a kid-- the dog has the diamond, get that dog. >> stephen: ruddy giuliani, giuliani says he might let the president answer questions about obstruction as long as they are ones that mueller doesn't have the answer to, that he really needs the answer to, and he hasn't made up his mind that trump is lying. okay. he can ask as long as he doesn't think that trump is going to lie? that is a legal equiv len of i'm go