harris: interesting, evan siegfried, great to have you. >> always great to be here. harris: fascinating read on russia. where can we find it? >> the "new york daily news." harris: thank you, i wanted him to say that. pump himself up a little bit. president trump is heading to kentucky tomorrow. we're talking about it. it's for a rally to support his health care overhaul plan. so what do we think he'll say about that, and what can we expect this week as republicans gear up for possibly a big vote on thursday. >>> and president trump's budget plans prompting a political firestorm. >> the vision is that this is what the president ran on. he's trying to do something that politicians are not famous that politicians are not famous for which is following through did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's over 6 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps. and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business. . harris:

harris: interesting, evan siegfried, great to have you. >> always great to be here. harris: fascinating read on russia. where can we find it? >> the "new york daily news." harrisself up a little bit. president trump is heading to kentucky tomorrow. we're talking about it. it's for a rally to support his health care overhaul plan. so what do we think he'll say about that, and what can we expect this week as republicans gear up for possibly a big vote on thursday. >>> and president trump's budget plans prompting a political firestorm. >> the vision is that this is what the president ran on. he's trying to do something that politicians are not famous for which is following through here's to the heroes -- america's small business owners. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes, who use their expertise to keep those businesses covered. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes behind the heroes, who brought us delicious gyros. actually, the gyro hero owns vero's gyros, so he should have been with those first heroes. ha ha! that's better. so, to recap -- small business owners are heroes, and our heroes help heroes be heroes when they're not eating gyros delivere

harris: jay, always a pleasure to pick your brain. >> absolutely. harrise right back, everybody. last week. just 1 pill each morning, 24 hours and zero heartburn. it's been the number 1 doctor recommended brand for 10... ...straight years, and it's still recommended today. use as directed. daddy! lets play! sorry kids. feeling dead on your feet? i've been on my feet all day. dr. scholl's massaging gel insoles have a unique gel wave design for outrageous comfort that helps you feel more energized. dr. scholl's. feel the energy! when you have a digital notebook to capture investing ideas that instantly gives you stock prices, earnings, and dividends... an equity summars the stock ratings of top analysts into a single score... and $4.95 online u.s. equity trades... you realize the smartest investing idea, isn't just what you invest in, but who you invest with. ♪ dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony. together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, bu

american admiral harry harris says it is confirmed by what is north korea's c continued provocative actions. it has missiles that could be launched to destroy missiles at high altitude. two components arrived on monday night. beijing is concerned the advanced radar may be used to monitor its military. >> translator: we're resolutely opposed to this deployment and determined to take any steps necessary to protect our own security interests. the united states and south korea will be responsible for any consequences. >> the spokesperson calls the situation around the korean peninsula complicated and sensitive. he said all parties involved should practice row strants and prevent the tension from escalating. and the disagreement is going further than the diplomatic level. people have protested against a major south korean conglomerate. the group provided the land where the missile defense system will be installed. chinese have been boycotting stores affiliated to lotte group since last month. an online video looks like people crush being products with a bulldozer, the deployment could further af

harris: harris faulkner knows a little bit about tattoo tattoos. this just happened. senator mike lee, republican of utah, just said this bill is going to fail. >> meghan: mike lee said that? >> harris: off subject, but he said we are going to confirm judge gorsuch. more importantly, what's happening? >> pete: it's a further climb with this obamacare bill, no doubt. they're going to put out opening shots because we close the house, a ghost of the senate, what is our conversation go? mike lee is a fellow traveler of the freedom caucus and he is that voice in the senate. i'm not surprised he would say that. >> harris: is this a sausage being made or do you think there's something to this? the freedom caucus isn't huge. >> pete: it does represent the conscience of the republican party as it pertains to sticking to the promises they made. they talked about for 7 years repealing obamacare. >> meghan: a lot of them are libertarians and libertarianism is not the same thing as being republican. i would call them the most extreme conservatives. >> pete: i would call them fiscal conservatives. >> harris: nancy pelosi -- >> meghan: as a someone who has multiple tattoos, that's a ridiculous --

this weekend illustrated how serious meghan and harry are yet again. >> meghan seemed at ease with harry and his inner circle. watching prince harry'sest friend tie the knot. >> apparently at the end of the wedding the person who officiated the service said to harry, sir, you're next. that certainly seems to be the general consensus. >> harry was an usher and proved he is the prince of fun. >> harry got carried away on the dance floor and his moonwalk to "billy jean" is said to have crashed into the waitress and drinks flying and the prince is said to be mortified as he helped her up. i think you can rely on harry for a good party. then on saturday, there was images of harry on the beach. we did not see meghan. perhaps they have a little private time. perhaps she was having a quiet time. >> meghan's style this weekend sure made it seem she is prepping to be a princess. here isswhat's interesting the designer is a long time favorite of the duchess of cambridge. kate wore this dress at a reception. in 2011 during her first royal tour to canada, she wore the designer twice. as for meghan's next move, she is expected back in toronto thi

harry, prince harry, and his american actress girlfriend, meghan, are setting up home together. discuss. that's interesting! is it? they are going to be moving into kensington palace, reports claim, which is reasonably significant in terms of whether they will actually get together. i would have been surprised if the royal family would have thought a divorced american actress would have been an appropriate consort for someone already quite close to the throne in terms of in—line for the throne but change and the queen has changed with them. prince harryve been watching the series about the royal house of windsor. if he sets up home with his girlfriend, we know that william and kate set up house, it was very lovely in the welsh privacy of anglesey. we know that edward did. anything but another royal divorce, anything. we will wait and see, we wish them well whatever they choose. that's the papers for tonight. caroline and tony, lovely tonight. caroline and tony, lovely to see you. as always, thank you very much. coming up next, the film review. hello, and welcome to the film review on bbc news. to take us through this week's cinema releases is mark kermode, of course. mark, what have you been watching this week?

prince harry is ready to start a family/095505 meghan realized harry was the one when she saw him playing with her friends 3 kids.vo#3but before harryal with his thirty five year old love - who was spotted solo in toronto over the weekend -- there's still one big task at hand for the "suits" actress...us weekly 095521 meghan has not met the queen yet but harry wants to make the introduction by end of summer in order to propose//he needs the queen's bleesing.sotóeventóinóe wósagópartyór1ó20170128ó001óp atrickóadams 012839 she seems super happy, so that's all that matters.vo #4 revthat's markle's áon-screená fiancee patrick adams showing his support for the lovebirds... who are set to make their first official debut together in the fall - possibly as the prince and his bride-to-be!us weekly sot 095801 they will be making their first official appearance together at the 3rd annual invictus games in late september, mark your calendars that wraps up kron 4 news at 5. steve aveson and pam moore are here with kron 4 news at six. grant and catherine thank you... we are following breaking news in south san francisco... crews battling a 3-alar

harris: all right. it has been great to have you. you are going to stay with us online. >> excellent. >> harris: right? >> of course i will. i don't want to leave the couch. >> harris: i don't want to leave the couch either. foxnews.com/"outnumbered" click on the overtime tab to watch us pop up also on facebook live outnumbered on fnc. great to watch you this >> fox news alert, we are awaiting information on the congressional investigation into russia's interference in the 2016 2016 election. speesecond the top democrat and republican on the senate intelligence committee are said to address that media 90 minutes from now. recovering out of the news, this is speethirty. more democrats now are stopping this up in court nominee, with this because a showdown over neil gorsuch in senate? in the white house expected to overturn internet privacy laws put in place by president obama. how that could affect you. plus... >> it was a big boom, and i thought it was a

harris harris an accidental shooting injures two children outside a chuck event cheese in ft.xas. a boy was playing with a gun after finding it in his parents' vehicle in the parking lot. the gun discharged injuring the boy in the hand and striking his 3-year-old brother in the back. doctors say they are expected to be okay. kelly: california cautiously opening the floodgates, so to speak, on the damaged oroville dam. we told you about it last month, the main spillway had been shut off for nearly a month after a massive crack appeared in the dam wall. a massive amount of boulders and debris then filled the space, they actually flew it in with helicopters which shut down the power plant, and it's a short-term fix for now with more repairs slated for this summer. authorities there forced thousands of evacuations after a rush of show and heavy rain. laura: and two people including a georgia middle schoolteacher arrested in a $6 million drug bust. authorities say two women were arrested in a home where officials found 61 kilograms of cocaine, one kilo of heroin and two semiautomat

he was with harry in that room when harry was stripping during the game. he was has practical jokes which harry. >> does it mean anything that megan's first official outing is a wedding? >> i'm hearing from many of his friends, he would be popping the question to megan by the end of the year. >> hello. >> anybody think it would be possible to make a live action version of beauty and the beast when the animated classic came out 25 years ago? >> no way. >> right, no way. >> that's what makes this a technological success is amazing. last night was the star-studded premier. >> emma watson showing off in this oscar de la renta jump suit. the 26-year-old has been hearing it on the global press split. >> i have to go through these. first one to comes to mind when you see these. >> modern ninja woman. this is like, classic but modern, just with the trousers. la leather. not leather. fake leather. cape. >> role playing. >> it's been ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> if my 5-year-old self knew i would get to do this, she would have died. died. >> supporting emma at premier, two former harry potter co-stars. making it date nigh

fromf the batteries was independence, missouri, and his name was harry s truman. harry truman went on to become the president of the united states. what he learned during world war i helped him throughout the rest of his career. one of the interesting things 75, in french, of american soldiers during world war i, they pronounced french in their doughboy style of french. the french 75 millimeter gun was acquired as a gift from the people of france in the 1980's. the french ambassador visited the museum and wondered why the museum did not have a 75. it was a symbol of their actions during the war. he was told they had been looking for a long time for one. he went back to france, found an original 75 millimeter gun, had it restored, and shipped to kansas city. heree been the curator since 1990. in that time, i have developed an incredible passion for learning about the war and especially about the people who were in the war itself. none of them are left to tell us their stories anymore. we have to present to the public through the objects they left, what their lives were l

the harry k, harry the pastrami sausage and jersey shore dog is there well, farmers market grain bowherbs. >> my kind of revealing her bod which drugyears. sh iet pills, about her childhood cocaine, alcohol. >> she grew up on the same block as judy garland. documented struggle with drug abuse set upstage for her own of again romance with kiss rocker abt that. she filed for divorce, she's, married to producer, steven bellafonte for she posted this photo on instagram, they have a five-year old like to have joint custody and deny him spousal that estranged husband. >> sleigh enduring pregnancy. >> can't wait to see this picture she was showing off her style with these new pictures on instagram. photos of her trip to meet with her mom, mentorship group, tina's angel they performed at albany dance company in l.a. beyonce wore a form fitting cream colored maxi dress with the white buckles on theo arriva and pink trench coat, jeweled silver earrings. >> i like those shoes. >> yes. >> all of the different details right there. >>> this makes me laugh,t is gaining, a little bit of traction. >>

brandon harris and miles harris were arrested on monday. both live in the apartment. not clear if they're related. >>> in montgomery county, whitehall elementary school is warning parents that their children may have been exposed to pertussis, also known as whooping cough. two students were diagnosed with the highly contagious disease this month. >>> and at the jersey shore, the superintendent of the lakewood school district says they will be forced to lay off nearly 120 teachers unless they can close a budget shortfall. the district is short about $15 million. it has until mid-may to finalize a budget. >>> 4:45 this wednesday morning. as we call it, hump day. let me start with the good news before jessica might give you something else. >> that's good. >> it's not -- not rainy and poor visibility this morning. >> right. one of the first days this week where we're getting off the bat with an easy drive, right? >> right. >> let's hope. let's hope it stays that way. route 309 this morning, our cameras around the p.a. turnpike. in is just near -- this is just near ft. was

harry and megan hearing wedding bells in gentlemjamaica. >> this is bigger than prince harry, one of his best friend getting married. this is a big deal for her to go as his plus one. >> a private jet, harry best man, paying about $3,000 for his just about coach set but this isn't megan's firsted withing in jamaica. >> this is where she got married in 2011 to trevor. i would imagine that going back to the island is going to have some mixed memories for megan.

i miss harry, harry is around here somewhere, harry reid said something nice about me. i can't find it. he basically said that i wished more people would follow senator graham's lead, highly qualified nominee. maybe that will happen in the future. whether this man is highly qualified i'm dying to hear the argument that he is not. you may not like the view he has of the law, i am dying to hear somebody over there tell me why he is not qualified to be sitting here, occupied down the street. when you look at federalist papers, i saw the musical hamilton, was pretty good. reading his work, he did better. the federalist papers, 78-87, basically what he tells us is the role of the senate, make sure the president doesn't pick someone especially favored for their state and association to their family, cronyism is what we are supposed to be doing. most supreme court justices until modern times confirmed with the vote. canned way all the blame on democratic friends about the election process. what i want to say to the public is i'm glad people like neil gorsuch are willing to go t

harry potter" before. raise your hand. [ cheers ] okay. >> jimmy: you read "harry potter"? [ cheers ] >> jimmy! jimmy! >> jimmy: who read -- you're the one who yelled it. you really? >> yes. jyou. i now harry just feel like i -- >> perfect. >> jimmy: yeah, that really -- >> miss, can you please stand up? >> yes. >> can youd very good. i also have a dictionary here. jimmy, if you wouldn't mind, can you please give this to any member of the roots that you like? anybody at all. it's your choice. >> jimmy: that i like? >> make it random. [ laughter ] >> jimmy: boy, oh, boy. oh, boy, boy, boy. get involved, dude. >> very good. [ laughter ] and i also have a book here for you. >> jimmy: uh-huh. >> okay? this is actually neil patrick harris' book. [ cheers ] >> jimmy: oh, i love him. we love him. >> yes. >> jimmy: we just had him on a a couple weeks ago. >> i know, and he actually talked about our show. so, i thought it might be fitting for -- to use his book. >> jimmy: oh, nice. >> okay, jimmy, here we go. i have a playing card here. i'm going to riffle through this book, just like this. as i do that, i just want you to say stop whenever you want, okay? so i'm gonna go through, just say stop. >>

harris. -- kemal harris trying to say that we are braced identity and division. too late.ears, you embraced soaring rhetoric. trump went another way. he replaced a mode of drama with relatable ideas. it was as scary to the democrats as it was convincing to everyone else. maybe that explains their frozen fear, the speechworks and they knew it. juan, that was the weirdest rebuttal. it was like they reconstructed it in a grad student stream. this is how trumps america would look. we need some older white people here. no cory booker. >> juan: i liked what you said about the diorama. that's what it looked like. this would've come from charles schumer. and nancy pelosi. he had put together a popular, successful version of obamacare in kentucky and that's what they were after. >> greg: i thought they were mailing it in. this is a former governor. he's not even working. >> eric: this is an opportunity to show you are the up-and-coming party. i tweeted "better luck next time, dams. look forward to 2024." i think they are locking trump into a second term already. governor beshear. 7

i miss harry. harry reid is around here somewhere. he said something nice about me, i can't find it, but he basically said i wished more people would follow senator graham's lead when it comes to voting for highly qualified nominees. he said that on the floor, maybe that will happen in the future. time will tell. as to whether or not this man is highly qualified, i am dying to hear the argument that he is not. you may not like the view he has of law, but i'm dying to hear somebody over there tell me why he's not qualified to be sitting here when a republican president occupies down the street. when you look at the federalists favor, i saw the musical hamilton, it was pretty good. the federalist papers, 78, 87, i can't remember the number. basically what he tells us is the role of the senate is to make sure the president doesn't pick some specially favored for their state or association with their family, someone with cronyism. most supreme court justices, up until modern times, basically were confirmed with a voice vote. things have c

harry and megan hearing wedding bells in jamaica. katie nikol has the details. e this is bigger thannc pri harry, one of his best friend getting married. this is a big deal for her to go as his plus one. >> meghan reportedly arrived via private jet. harryabout $3,000 for his just above coa this isn't meghan's first wedding in jamaica. >> where she got married in 2011 to trevor engleson. i would imagine going back to the island is going to have very mixed memories for meghan. >> we've confirmed everyone will be staying here, the bride and groom respected out the entire 1 10 acre round hill resort anvil laz where rooms cost between $600 to $7,000 a night. so will harry meghan stay in the same suite. >> i'm told they're certainly sharing a room together. one of the top end villas at the resort and the luxury of a private butler who cook them breakfast. >> will the celebration turn into a wild wedding weekend. >> the groom tom "skipp" inskip has a reputation for being a party animal. >> whenever there's trouble, tom is never far away from the drama. he was with harry in that room when harry was during a game of billiards. he's very into practical jokes >> so does it mean anything meghan's first official outing is a wedding? >> i'm hearing

they found it interesting because when you think about it, prince harry, maybe prince harry doing this but prince harrym, it is just different. >> you really don't care. >> yes, and then it has to go backup and then back to the side. >> he was raising the roof. >> some people are like hand dancers are more body. >> girl always does the one arm. >> yeah. >> some people are calling them dad moves because he is such a dad, right. >> go to moves, you know, you don't know, rhythm, and beat, it is just feeling it. >> yes. >> i would love it, even though he is prince william he still goes to the club and he had a little something, something enjoying himself. >> is that the liquid courage. i'm doing this thing. >> we love it. >> exactly. >> let's talk angelina jolie she just took her first step into the single world. she was a get at london school of economics speaking about woman's rights. she spoke of her experience and answered questions on her work, as u.n. special envoy and she admitted she was very nervous. she had butterflies before doing this but in a masters course, at the school. so this is a introdu

harry. harry reid is around here somewhere he told me something the basically said a wish more people would follow senator gramm's lead boat -- rooting for the holly -- highly qualified nominees may be that will happen in the future. whether or not he is highly qualified i am dying to hear where he is not. and qualified to be sitting here been in the occupied down the street. paisa the musical hamilton in "the federalist papers" 78, , of the role of the senate bill specially favored in the stay in association to the family and most supreme court justices with a voice thin. we cannot lay the blame on the democratic friends but i want to say to the public for judge gorsuch to go through this. i'm sure justice kagan and moore did not choose that path but they've made it through with flying colors. awaiting for some of their to tell me why you're not qualified for the job you are seeking with 2700 decisions with an academic record the reason i didn't do all the things you did academically is because i could not get into those schools but the way you handled yourself i thank you should be proud of the court for all the statements by your colleagues who know you and anybody better than appear with no tv cameras rolling say nothing but great things about you even those of a different philosophy but from my point of view you are every bit qualified as justice kagan and 20 and doors just the good as a man over thema course of the next couple days american people can understand and then you have to say no there's a reason i did not ask justices to give me opinion what they will do when they get of the court because they would not tell me that i did not feel comfortable asking them that. and so when justice scalia past we already had three primaries on the republican side i thought long and hard about that.imariehe by not allowing the current president to nominatee somebody after the political process had started. soleil started to look around this is what joe biden fought -- thought to someone steps down to send up the name of gases senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on the nominee. with that conclusion was the season is under way action on nominations must we put off until the campaign ise over. that is what joe said 1992. bottom line no doubt to the shoe were on the afoot theater side would havein delayed the confirmation of process and tell the next president was elected. and then the senate in the hands and not doing anything and with those democratic words in the past and we have been consistent and have been voting for everybody since i have been here. just as roberts, uh justice alito, justice sotomayor and justice kagan and all four have one thing in common how can they choose one and then say they're not qualified for the job ahead? living exemplary lives and now the shoe was on the other foot. after i've voted for justice kagan all the headlines said this will hit 20 it's the primary. they were right. that was the main reason i dunno how we got here as a nation the scalia had 98 / nothing ginzberg 96 / three. one happened between now and then? to understand scalia was well qualified and ginsburg was a well qualified liberal i dunno how we got there but here's what i hope, that we turn around to go back otherwise you will destroy the judiciary over time. >> senator from minnesota. >> we avoided met once in my office and all those in the judiciary committee are looking forward to meetingce you. this committee has no greater responsibility than the one before us today our constitution the laws and values all depend on the supreme court that is impartial and fair and just to nomination comes the most unprecedented time in history witnessing a singular moment and even undermined. and to look at the views and trying to come before us this afternoon ended in the context of the era of which they live. from the highest levels of government and the autocratic foreign government and the voting rights have been stripped of far too many with dark money and extraordinary sums and to have the outside influence of politics and just last month they saw the president of united states appointed to the so-called judge. and they essene hate of least for the religious minorities. from kids and restaurants told not to go back with a team from to a man gunned down while walking to his car in the driveway. you are not the cause of these challenges. but if confirmed to play a a critical role to deal with the marco this is a serious moment been nation's history you and it is our duty to uphold the model of the supreme court. court to help them achieve equal justice under law. i spent a years at the prosecutor's office how it has a real impact that extends far beyond those of us in the love was sent to jail. and those in the 21st century with 21st century problems. solos written in the 18th century and the 14th amendment agrees equal protection of the of laws written in the 19th century. it isn't just about your legal experience but trying to understand what you'll do on the court with a set of dusty booksin the set of the law library the bedrock of our society. we need to know how you approach the law. after nominated to the supreme court last year we often heard how he decides cases to the narrowest possible grounds.ard ab across the ideological spectrum. we look forward to ourli judicial philosophy but looking at your past decisions in a speech last year you talk to rob the differences betweenju differences of legislatorsd appr although they may appeal to their own convictions to reshape the law as they think it should be in the future the judge's should be none of those in democratic society instead try to apply the law as it is to focus backwards and not forward to decide whether reasonable reader would have understood the law to be a one to understand those views of the constitution to process and equal protection and the supreme court which has the power of judicial review has the constitutional duty to redefine zero arbiter of what it means.at can it many of the issues that they never considered because of the social change we are no longer dealing with colony death in england but instead a driverless car or a drone and those of the topics of the hearings that i attended last week how your judicial philosophy books back word bin of forward to affect the rights of fellow citizens. in one example of the chevron doctrine. with as feasibleng interpretations the 33 year-old case guarantees the most complex regulatory decisions with the professionals and those protecting public safetyt r with those requirements against lead based paint and clean water protection for great lakes. india's suggested should be overturned but yet with titanic implications on all aspects of everyday life countless rules could be in jeopardy and there would be widespread uncertainty. if you believe this time to overturn chevron then we need to know with what you would replace it. and other opinion is hit in the upper using just the court should applies tricked scrutiny to campaign contributions that the supreme court adopted that and deal it could jeopardize the last few protections on the books the notion that congress has to set finance rules is a directt contradiction with the express views of the american people with over three-quarters of americans have said we need sweepingqu new laws while the polls are judges problem with the unlimited undisclosed money to drown out the people's voices to undermine our elections other questions are raised by your opinion you found that corporationsand b would exercise their own religious belief but corporations have a right to free speech that would validate the prohibition. these and not the only first amendment issues and one to talk about your times and freedom of the press as well as antitrust. i consider your nomination by reminded what justice blackmun said there's a way to teach law with a glimpse of the basic good there is room for flexibility not everything is black andla white.ss and miseries and we have judges to apply the of was because the answers are not always as clear as to a bike and sometimes more than one reasonable interpretation. as a prosecutor every decision we made lowercase we chose to pursue had real implications in the same with judges. it wasn't a law professor in the end helped by the eighth circuit on chevron but aggression story worker in minnesota. in a court stripped away thehe rules that opened the doorhe cou to a limited super cat -- super pac spending the was the grandma who was hurt in minnesota who believed giving $10 to% under would make a difference. as the daughter of the iron ore minor one life was saved by those rules it was the workers who went to work everyday with the black lunch bucket 1500 feet underground. my dad was the first to graduate from high school and community college and university of minnesota here remember standing in front of the caskets of those mineworkers it was the worker protections to organize as the union that gave them jobs.na judge you have been rightfully praised for academic credentials andghtful experience. but these hearings are want to know more than just read your records but have if you are confirmed your decisions will reflect president and the law of your judgments and decisions will be good for done in a way to help all-american as to the minnesota girl she store worker is not politics and that is why we have these hearings today. thank you. >> senator takers -- senator cruz civic thinking for your audibles service over decades and your willingness to endure the spectacle of this confirmation hearing. figure 13 was devastating for those of us who revered the constitution and rule of law.d on that day loss supreme court justice scalia. another greatest justices to reverse it of a corps as a trail blazing advocate for the original meaning of the institution for judicial humility. his death left enormous holelefa in the rule of law in a daunting task -- task is to consider the enormity but today there is a sharp disagreement of the veryry nature of the supreme court someone get it as a hyper powerful political branch growing frustrated with the legislative process the try to see there preferred policy. for conservatives leander stand the opposite is true with a much more modest role judges are not supposed toac make law they are supposed to abide by it. but had his seat been filled by barack obamacare hillary clinton his legacy would have been in grave danger. to see the will of the people with nothing cast aside a supreme court majority that viewed itself with the power what policyew should govern the nation to see the democratic process controlled by five unelected lawyers in washington d.c.shiftn and as part of the nation's future that is why after justice scalia untimely death the senate chose to exercise our authority to advise president obama would not consent to a supreme court nominee until the people in the midst of a presidential election couldho vote for 80 years there's not a supreme court vacancy vacy in the majority right decided last year was not the first so that people have a choice between the original is a few of the constitution or a progressive view of the constitution represented by barack obama artillery clinton repeated a promise to romney in the mold of justice scalia and laid out a specific list of 21 judges constitutionalist the he said he did choose is nominee an judge gorsuch was one of the 21. to create the most transparent process that the nation has ever seen. voters have a direct choice to understand those 21 men and women had a very different vision of a supreme court justice before then the people spoke and what was a referendum of what should replace justice scalia contextual as m end rule of law and humility and protecting the bill of rights and religious liberties and second amendment rather than handing that authority over to the judges of the supreme court. given that history in the impeachment on the central issue a was to just that judge gorsuch is not an ordinary nominee. because of this process that is unprecedented his nomination carries a super legitimacy of unprecedented the american people play a very direct rule to help choose the nomination. is like to renown justice he is set to replace he has an i acpeccable academic record with a fable tenant to the constitution in rule of law and refused to legislate his own policy preferences from the bench of recognizing the pivotal role to expand those fundamental liberties on the night he was nominated judge gorsuch explained a judge who likes every outcome is preferikely a bad judge. boy from the results he performers that is exactly right they should give comfort to the american people and the democratic colleagues it is worth recalling better friends of the democratic side of the aisle understand and then confirmed by this committee and was likewise confirmed by voice vote without a single democrat speaking a word of opposition.r for minority leader schumeroc or harry reid or ted kennedy senators feinstein or those who still sit on this nors committee not even senator barack obama or joe biden relief clinton but the question this hearing poses to the democratic colleagues is what has changed? 10 years ago judge gorsuch was so unobjectionable the in the decades since his had been exemplary record by any measure showing himself to be more worthy of the bipartisan support. unfortunately reality suggests that probably not something my democratic colleagues feel they can do in today's political environment. many believe they have no t choice but to manufacture attacks with a one-two or not just to preserve their own future to protect themselves for the primariesme back home most recently some junicrats tried to slander judge gorsuch to be against the little people has dared to rule not on the specific idea -- a devotee - - attended the and this is absurd.ng, ma many of these same criticsti been in the last eight years that tacking a catholic charity to

harris. sen. harris: stay in the sunshine. [laughter] sen. burr: i'm going to recognize you to start. mr. mandia: thank you for this opportunity to share. what i'm going to speak about today is the cyber capabilities and techniques attributed to russian hackers, specifically a threat group we refer to as a.p.t. 28. i want to talk also about recommendations to prevent or mitigate the compromise. i want to give you a little of my background and the background of my company. as i said here right now, we have hundreds of employees responding to computer security breaches. we think it's critical to own that moment of responding to a breach, collecting the trace evidence, analyzing that evidence. so as i give you my narrative today, it's based on three things. one, what we are learning as we respond to hundreds of breaches a year. we're cataloging that trace evidence and putting it into a linked database, and we have over 150 threat analysts who speak 32 languages in 19 countries, and they're trying to marry up what we're seeing in cyberspace to what we're seeing in a geopolitical world out the

harris for the last question. mr. harris: i didn't abuse my five minutes before. mr. cole: i was taking blame on myself. mr. harris: i'm sorry my dear colleague isn't here talking about a free press. we are talking about a government funded press. now, i'm making no comparisons you compare norway. no comparisons. you can go look at russian tv. they get government funds too. i am not going to make a comparison. you know means the truth in russian. what we are talking about today is government funding. the gentlelady talking about education. agenda is not education. i gave you a couple of examples. let me read from the description of an mpt program. it's called the new black says, quote, this is from their website. i am going to get to the agenda issue. it says this film documents the political race from the perspective of lgbtq supporters and those against marriage equality. i know a lot of people who don't like the term marriage equality. because they don't believe anything is equal to marriage. but this public broadcasting station chose a politically charged term and then compared those who are for it with someon

harry potter fans. i'm sorry. >> tom: you're saying that harry potter fans are crazy. >> i understand how her life could be a little tricky. the over exuberance of the harry: it's not just harry potter, the world of selfies, it's trouble now. >> what she's talking about is not only that it's bothersome, but then people know where you are and what you're doing. what you look like. i don't know if she's had trouble with a particular person may be -- >> tom: i imagine, she seems like she might have a couple. >> a few people online waiting for one to show up so they know where she is, i am to scranton. >> tom: people are seen as rude if they don't do this, what's the problem, stop and take a picture. but it's invasive. >> when you're super famous, the story resonates with me, because when i leave the fox building, it's like "enough, enough." >> tom: people will stop you and ask you to take pictures sometimes in between -- >> thousands of them every day. >> tom: you probably like it, as do i. i usually do stop, i'm glad they know who i am. >> she's actually rely famous. i understand why she draws this line. she's not rude, because what would be rude is to say

harris. and shane harris joins us now tonight. thanks for being with us on the. congratulations on the scoop. >> thanks thanks for having me. >> your reporting is that flynn has made this offer. he's spoken to both house intelligence committee and senate intelligence committee. also you report that he approached the fbi with the same offer that he would testify in exchange for immunity. now, i'm putting a fine point on that because the statement from flynn's lawyer tonight mentions the house and senate intelligence committees, but he doesn't mention the fbi. are you quite sure of that point that he went to the fbi with this same offer? >> yeah, our sources have confirmed that to us. i trust these individuals in particular. it would not be surprising, by the way, for him to approach law enforcement with that offer as well. we don't know the exact sequence of it but it wouldn't surprise me. getting immunity from congress would be i think more difficult for him than getting it from the fbi because there's a whole a lot of procedures the congress has to go through to give him that immunity. clearly as his lawyer said, he has a story to tell, and feels he needs protections in order to do that. it makes perfect seens that he would seek those before he gives that testimony to investigators. >> what can you tell us about how offers like this are weighed. you mentioned that it may be a different calculus for the congressional committees than it is for the fbi. how would those committees decide whether or not to take this offer? >> in general what investigators are weighing is how important is the information that that witness has to give us, and is it so valuable or do we need to get to it that we're willing to give that grant of immunity. there's different kinds of immunity. you can give limited immunity which is narrowly focused. that was given to some of hillary clinton's aides in change for information. but generally the basic weighing that you're doing is is it worth it to get that information and is there perhaps no other way to get that information. we're seeing potentially not many takers for mike flynn's offer that could be an indicator that they feel they can obtain this information from other means. they could also subpoena him and he could take the fifth, but they may have over avenues they can get at without taking that remarkable step of immunizing him. >> do we have any word tonight in terms of either the president himself or the white house more broadly having any sort of response to this? part of the way i think we assess the seriousness of the likelihood of this coming to pass is whether or not the white house seems shaken by the offer. >> we haven't heard anything from the white house yet. i would expect sean spicer will be asked about this in the briefing tomorrow. that's going to be very telling. obviously if mike flynn says he has a story to tell, it's about his story working for donald trump presumably for the many months he was the advisor. we'll find out i suspect tomorrow if not before the briefing what the white house thinks of his offer. >> shane harris, senior national security writer for the "wall street journal". congratulations on this scoop tonight. it's a big deal. >> thanks, rachel. >> on the one hand, this is as big a night for news in this country as we've had in a long time. it sort of feels like thursday, you know. days that end in "y" have scoops in them these days. but there's a lot to get to tonight and we have a bunch of guests here tonight. stay with us. >>> senator john mccain has memorably described the scanning -- trump russia scandal as a centipede where every day we're not waiting for the other shoe to drop. every day we just watch one by one as the other 99 shoes drop one after the other. the biggest one that dropped today is the news that former national security adviser, fired national security advisor michael flynn is offering to testify in exchange for immunity. he's obviously in a position to know a lot about the worst case scenarios within this scandal, so that is a very big deal. only something that big a

harris: you did. and you match the background too, that helps a lot. so good to have you. >> i'm glad to be here. >> harris: bring in the intelligence. >> good to be here. we have a great show. >> harris: two federal courts blocking president trump's revised ban restricting travel from six mostly muslim countries. a federal judge in maryland halted the executive order this morning. a federal judge in hawaii did the same thing yesterday. that judge arguing the government's revised travel ban is not about national security but instead about discrimination. his ruling said this, in part. a reasonable objective observer, enlightened by the specific historical context contemporaneous public statements and specific consequence of events leading to its issuance would conclude that the executive order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated religiously neutral purpose, end quote. president trump tore into the decision at a rally last night. watch. >> you don't think this was done by a judge for political reasons, do you? no. this ruling makes us look weak. which, by the way, we no longer are. we're going to fight this terrible ruling. we're going to

harry smith, lincoln, montana. >> harry, looking good ski joring. and we got him home in one piece. harryer life well lived. amy rosthal tugged at hearts around the world when she wrote a piece for the "new york times" titled "you may want rosenthal is the accomplished author of 21 children's books and two memoirs, including "encyclopedia of an ordinary life" which memoirs of its deca. in 2015, amy was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. last month in her final days, she sat down and wrote a tribute to her husband jason that spread throughout the world. rosenthalmeith jason. i want more time with my children. but that is not going to happen. finishing the essay on valentine's day, she continued the most genuine, non-vase-oriented gift i can hope for is that the right person reads this, finds jason and another love story begins. amy worked in advertising before deciding before maternity leave with h with her third child that she wanted to be a writer. she wrote well-knownsike "littl" jason's wife the toothpaste that helpstax, prevent bleeding gums. if you spit blood when you brush or floss you

harris: anytime you get beyond 20 inches, that is just a lot of heavy snow on rooftops, it's a lot on these roads. you harris: adam has final words before we hit the commercial break. watch out for power outages. the wind and weight of the snow could be a problem. as they get snow-covered, we lose a lot of problem. that will be hallmark for the storm coming up on the east coast.

harry was an usher and proved he is the prince of fun. >> harry got carried away on the dance floor and his new crashed into the waitress and drinks flying and the prince was said to be mortified as he helped her up. i think you can rely on harry for a good party. then on saturday, there was images of harry on the beach. we did not see meghan. they have a private pool. perhaps she was having a quiet time. >> meghan's style this weekend sure made it seem she is prepping to be a princess. here is what's interesting the designer is a long time favorite of the duchess of cambridge. kate wore this dress at a reception. in 2011 during her first royal to canada, she wore the designer twice. as for meghan's next move, she is expected back in toronto this week to resume filming on "suits". >> there's been a lot of rumors she is hoping to be written out of the show. really the conundrum comes does she give up her career for her prince? >> lit me tell you shotgun, iff leaving tonight.posed to me, i'm i will not be back. >> see you here tomorrow. >> i will be back. >>> it might have been weird for meghan to be back in jamaica, that's where she married her ex-husband in 2011. they divorced after two years together. >>> speaking of, how abo

is the most fun show to do. >> harris: even if that's not true, i love you for saying it. >> sandra: moving on, harris, you probably have some strong feelings. >> harrisoing to close science-based jobs? why just the classrooms? as a mom, i have a major problem with that. i think women should go to work tomorrow. >> meghan: first of all, there is a burden on people who can't afford child care. were they supposed to do? you're crating more problems. i think the women's movement needs to be aware. i don't relate to women all dressed in white because it has to do with planned parenthood and abortion and there's really strong lines between them modern feminist movement and why women don't feel comfortable calling ourselves from feminists. >> sandra: isn't there a better way to do this? isn't this a narrative we've heard time and time again? >> eboni: i expect will continue to hear hear it throughout term presidency. here's my issue in general. i try to make it a habit not to criticize protests as long as they're not violent in general. my only issue with this particular one is what harris brought up, the people that literally cannot afford to participate i

harry in kentucky, harry. >> caller: yes, sir. i am calling you about mar sker beverage.hey had a breakout in their revenue this quarter just reported. where do you see this improved sales carrying the stock price in six months? >> i read the conference call. everyone was just so gaga over it, all the new products and stuff. i thought it stalled from the future. i'm not sure i want to -- i mean everybody loved that monster call. i'm reading it saying i've been saying this for years. now everybody loves it? uh-uh. not my cup of monster. how about derek in georgia, derek. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. >> my pleasure. what else is there to do here? >> caller: well, the topic i would like to ask you about as an investor rather than a trader if we could make that distinction is kroger. is it going to keep sliding? >> boy, that quarter had no game. that business is so competitive. this is the one i like. this is the tomato pot -- cc, this is our fave. no, kroger is just another ho-hum quarter. i can't believe it. if you want to be in that business, you got to buy tre

siberia, almost a month after the soviet's test, finally, the president of the united states, harry true m harry truman put out a statement letting the world know that somebody else other than the united states had nuclear capability. it was a written statement that he put out. "we have evidence that within recent weeks an atomic explosion occurred in the ussr." that statement was issued on september 23rd, 1949. and as you might imagine, everybody freaked out. >> president truman's dramatic announcement that russia has created an atomic explosion has reporters heading where they will address the united nations. >> does russia have the atomic bomb? >> the russian foreign minister maintains his silence. >> does russia have the atomic bomb? well, would you reply to me? russian foreign minister maintained his silence in that interaction and in his speech that day, honestly, because actions speak louder than words and you know what, the soviets freaking had the bomb. it was not just the u.s. with the monopoly anymore. every interaction with the soviets that we would have from that moment forward woul

harry reid did it. harry reid was wrong. >> with me senator lindsey graham, republican from south carolina. nice to see you, sir. >> thank you. >> we're going to have a fight next week, aren't we? >> looks like it. >> and it's sort of interesting. all these democrats have said they're going to vote no for the supreme court for judge gorsuch. >> right. >> but in 2006 when he was put on the federal court for the tenth circuit, a lot of these democrats, including chuck schumer, voted yes. so what happened between then and now? >> well, he's had ten and a half of being a judge and from what i can tell is he's been a good judge. the american bar association, which is a pretty independent organization, gave him the highest rating you could reive. a 900-page report, you can read it if you'd like, they interviewed 500 lawyers, clerks, people who know judge gorsuch who say he was one of the most outstanding judges in the country. he is reasonable, he is mainstream, he's conservative and i think a home run pick by president trump. >> the supreme court says that you're supposed to provide to the president advice and consent. >> right. >> what does that mean? >> i think it used to mean that scalia got 98 votes. >> that's interesting because judge gorsuch is probably farther to the left. >> he's certainly no more conservative than scalia. >> how much for ginsburg on the left? >> strom thurmond voted for ginsburg. i voted for sotomayor and kagan, why? i thought they were qualified. i didn't vote for president obama or president trump. but when it comes to the election, once it's over, i think my advice and consent should be given not because i would have chosen somebody different, because they're qualified. when you look at the hamilton papers about this, he says the role of the senate is to knock out the unqualified, favoritism, somebody would favor one state over another, a special relationship to the president, some family member, not to substitute your judgment for that of the president and not to substitute your philosophy for that of the nominee. that's my view. >> it's what some amusement that senator harryd invoked the nuclear option for appeals court judges and for trial court judges, allowing for just 51 votes instead of the 60 to cut it off. and now it looks like is that going to happen with the supreme court? >> it looks like we're headed that way. see, i was in the gang of 14 back in 2003, i can't remember when it was. the first bush term they wholesale filibustered almost all of his judial nominees. we came up with a gang of 14 that sd when it came to the pre court and judicial nominees, there would be no filibuster unless there were extraordinary circumstances. that held until 2013 when harry reid changed the rules for circuit court and below. and now here we are. all i'm saying -- >> it's called the shoe's on the other foot. >> sotomayor and kagan got cloture. i can't believe gorsuch is less qualified than they are. >> who did you vote for? >> evan mcmullen and i wouldn't know him if he walked in the room. >>> you presided over a hearing today on russian efforts to undermine dem

that was discpovered when we did that search warrant police say davlon harris was also involved in the car to car shooting. however harris was arrested near the scene the day of the incident...in san leandro haaziq madyun kron4news here in san francisco two men were taken into custody after they they apparently based jumped here in san francisco two men were taken into custody after they they apparently based jumped off the top around 1130 last night and floated to the west landing along jones street two blocks away. bad luck on their part, they were spotted by police officers in a cruiser. now the two men were arrested and charged with trespassing for entering the hotel and conspiracy for planning to trespass. police are also looking for a third suspect, a woman, who was seen by witnesses with the pair that jumped. clifford kron 4 news. another gorgeous day across the bay area.. in store for tomorrow.but then, a change is on the way. meteorologist lawrence karnow is back to tell us when the rain will return. skies will be clear and chilly tonight with lows in the mid 30s and 40s. tomorrow will likely be the warmest day

harry. harry reid is around here somewhere. he said something nice about me, i can't find it, but he basically said i wished more people would follow senator graham's lead when it comes to voting for highly qualified nominees. he said that on the floor, maybe that will happen in the future. time will tell. as to whether or not this man is highly qualified, i am dying to hear the argument that he is not. you may not like the view he has of law, but i'm dying to hear somebody over there tell me why he's not qualified to be sitting here when a republican president occupies down the street. when you look at the federalists favor, i saw the musical hamilton, it was pretty good. the federalist papers, 78, 87, i can't remember the number. basically what he tells us is the role of the senate is to make sure the president doesn't pick some specially favored for their state or association with their family, someone with cronyism. most supreme court justices, up until modern times, basically were confirmed with a voice vote. things have changed and we can't lay all the blame on our democratic friends without criticizing the selection process. what i want to say to the public is i am glad people like judge gorsuch are willing to go through this. i am sure the others on the court may have wished they hadn't made it through but they did with flying colors. i would like to ask someone on the other side why you are not qualified. when academic record, the reason i didn't do all the things you did academically, i couldn't get into the schools you were able to get in two. the way you handled yourself, you should be proud of the way you handled yourself on the court. all of the statements by your colleagues who know you better than anyone else up here say nothing but great things about you. even people who have a different philosophy. i want you to know that from my point of view you are every bit as qualified as justice so the mayor and kagan. i think you are just a good as man as they are, to find women. over the course of the next few days, the american people will get to understand who you are and within limits they will want you to decide every case they don't like here and you will have to say no, and there is a reason i didn't ask them to give me an opinion as to what they would do when they got on the court because i knew they wouldn't tell me that. i didn't feel comfortable asking the map. as to justice garland, one thing i can say for sure is that when justice scalia passed on february 13, we had already had three primaries on the republican side and the campaign was in swing on the democratic side. i thought long and hard about that. are we doing something unfair by not allowing the current president to nominate somebody and fill a vacancy in the last year of their presidency after the political process had started. when i started looking around at what other people thought, here's what joe biden thought in 92. if someone steps down i would highly recommend the president not name someone and not send up a name. if bush did send someone up, i would ask the senate to not have a hearing on that nominee. it would be a pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on supreme court nominations must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what my friend joe said in 1992. the bottom line here is, i have no doubt in my mind if the shoe was on the other foot, the other side would have delayed the confirmation process until the next president were elected. in 100 years, when we had the president of one party in power and the senate in the hands of another, i think we had one person confirmed in the last year of the term. i don't feel that any injustice has been done to anybody. the bottom line, when you raise words from the past, they are basically saying what we said. the one thing i can say is that i have been consistent. i have voted for everybody since i have been here. for of them. alito, justice roberts, justice of the mayor and kagan. i felt all of them had one thing in common. no republican would've chosen them but how could a republican say they were not qualified for the job ahead. they had led an exemplary life, well-qualified and years on the bench. now the shoe was on the other foot. remember, after i voted for ms. kagan, all the headlines were that this will ensure that graham it's primary. they were right. that's not the only reason, to my primary opponents, but that was the main reason. i made it through just fine. i don't know how we got here as a nation. justice scalia had 98 - 0. ginsburg was 96 - 3. what happened between now and then? how did we go from being able to understand that scalia was a wealth qualified conservative and ginsburg was a well-qualified liberal and recognize that elections matter. i don't know how we got there but here's what i hope, we turn around and go back to where we were because what we are doing will destroy the judiciary over time. >> thank you senator graham. now senator call bashar. >> thank you. welcome judge. we have met once before on our office and we are looking forward to hearing from you and we welcome your family as well. this midi has no greater responsibility than the one before us today. our constitution, laws and values all depend on a court that is impartial, fair and just. your nomination comes at an interesting time in our history. we are witnessing a moment of constitutional and democratic unease. in recent months, foundational elements of our democracy including the rule of law have been questioned, challenged and undermined. i must look at your view and record in the view of america today. you come before us this afternoon not only as a nominee sitting at a table with your friends and family behind you, but in the context of the era in which we live. from the highest level of government we have heard criticism of journalists. seventeen intelligent agencies has confirmed that russia attempted to influence our most recent election. at the same time, voting rights in the u.s. have been stripped from far too many while extraordinary sums add up to an estimated 800 million in just six years and continues to have an outside influence, distorting our representative democracy. we saw the president refer to a man appointed to the federal bench by george w. bush as a so-called judge. we have sadly seen hates unleashed toward religious minorities from jews and muslims. then i'm directed at innocent americans. kids in restaurants being told to go back to where they came from to a man gunned down while washing his car in his driveway. the pillars of democracy and constitution are at risk. you are not the cause of these challenges, judge. these challenges to our democracy, but if concerned you would play a critical role in dealing with them. this is a serious moment in our nations history. as representatives of the american people it is our duty to determine if you will uphold the motto on the supreme court building itself, to help all americans achieve equal justice under law. before i was elected to the senate, i spent eight years leading minnesota's largest prosecutor office. i've seen firsthand how the lot has an impact that extends beyond the walls of the courtroom, whether it's crime victims and their family or people who have seen a sentence and then sent to jail. those living in the 21st century with 21st century problems, although the u.s. constitution and the bill of rights were written in the 18th century, though the 14th amendment guarantee equal protection of the law was written in the 19th century, the decisions made today affect not the lives of our 18th and 19th century ancestors, but of all americans today. judge, these hearings will not just be about your legal experience. they are about trying to understand what you would actually do on the court. the law is more than a set of dusty books in the back of a law library. it is the bedrock of our society. we need to know how you approach the law. after judge garland was nominated, we often heard about how he is a careful jurist who decides cases on the narrowest possible brown, who builds consensus across the ideological spectrum, who doesn't inject political consideration into his ruling. we look forward to hearing what you are judicial philosophy would be on the court. looking at your past decisions, i have questions about how you would approach your work. in a speech last year, you spoke about the differences between judges and ledge fighters. you said legislators may appeal to he their own moral convict convictions to re- shape a law and judges should be none of those things in a democratic society. judges you said, should strive to apply the law as it is, focusing backward not forward, and looking to text, structure and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be. i want to understand those use of the constitutions and how they square with modern day life. due process, equal perso protecf the law, these are general and sweeping terms and the supreme court which has the power of judicial review has the constitutional duty to be the final arbiter of what the constitution means. rulings that can impact voting rights, civil rights and the rights of people to marry. many of the issues we face are ones that the country's founders never considered, and never could have considered because of all the social change and innovation that has taken place. we are no longer dealing with plows, bonnets and colony debts in england but instead driverless cars, drone and cybercrime. those were just the topics of the hearings i attended last week. i want to understand how your judicial philosophy, which as you suggest looks backward, not forward, may affect the rights of our fellow citizens. i also want to understand the implications of your views on legal precedent. one example of this occurs in the context of the chevron doctrine. in stating that courts should generally differ to reasonable interpretation of executive agencies, this 33-year-old case guarantees the regulatory decisions, one's judges themselves may have little or no expertise to handle, are made by the scientists and professionals best equipped to rid rise to the challenges. these include things like rules protecting public safety, requirements against lead-based paint and clean water protection for our great lake lakes. last year in your opinion, you suggested chevron should be overturned, yet this act would have titanic, real-world implications on all aspects of our everyday life. countless rules could be in jeopardy. protections that matter to the american people would be compromised and there would be wide spread uncertainty. if you believe it's really time to overturn chevron, we need to know with what you would replace it. another opinion i want to talk about, in your concurring opinion you suggest court should apply strict scrutiny to laws applying to campaign contributions. if the supreme court adopted that view it could compromise a few remaining campaign-finance protection still on the books. the notion that congress has little or no role in setting reasonable campaign-finance role is in direct contradiction with the expressed views of the american people. in recent polls, over three quarters of americans have said we need sweeping new laws to reduce the influence of money and politics. polls are not a judges problem but democracy should be. when undisclosed money floods our campaign, it drowns out the people's voices and undermines our election. other questions about your views in money and politics are raised by your opinion and hobby lobby. you found the corporations were legal persons and could exercise their own religious beliefs. this ruling leaves open the troubling argument that corporations have a right to free speech, equal to that of citizens. that would invalidate the prohibition of corporation donating. these are the only first amendment issues i will raise. i want to talk about new york times versus sullivan and freedom of the press as well as an area you have great expertise in which is antitrust. justice blackmun once said, surely, there is a way to teach law. strict and demanding as it might be, with some glimpse of its humaneness and basic good. there is room for flexibility and different answers and not all is black and white. you see, there is a reason we have judges to apply the laws to the fact. it's because answers aren't always as clear as we would like and sometimes there is more than one reasonable interpretation. as a prosecutor, i knew every charging decision that we made, every case we chose to pursue had real implications. it is the same with judges. in the end, it wasn't a law professor or federal jurist who is helped by the eighth circuit reliance on chevron. it was a grocery store worker and his hard-earned pension. when the court stripped away the rules that open the door to unlimited super pack spending, it wasn't the campaign financers or the ab man who was hurt. it was a grandma in minnesota that believed giving $10 to her senator would make a difference. as a granddaughter of an minor, i can tell you it wasn't a ceo whose life was saved by mining safety rules. it was the minnesota iron ore workers like my grandpa who went to work every day with a black lunchbox, 1500 feet underground in a cage. my dad, who ended up as the first kid and his family to graduate from high school, and from there to community college and to the university of minnesota still remembers as a little boy standing in front of the casket of those workers lining saint anthony church. it was the worker protection, coupled with the ability to organize the union that finally made those minor jobs safe. you have been rightfully praised for your credentials and experience. at these hearings i want to know more than just your record. i want to know how, if you are confirmed, your decision will reflect president and the law. whether your judgments will be good or done in a way to help all americans from their grandmother to the minnesota grocery store worker. that is not politics. that is why we are having these hearings today. thank you. >> thank you senator klobuchar now senator cruise. >> thank you for your decades of service, honorable service, thank you for your family being here today and thank you for your willingness to endure the spectacle of this confirmation hearing. february 13 of last year, it was a devastating day for those of us who revere the constitution and the rule of law. on that day we lost justice scalia. he was one of the greatest justices to ever sit on the court. he was a trailblazing advocate for the original meaning of the constitution and a shining example of judicial humility. his death left an enormous hole, not only in our hearts, but in the protections of the rule of law. it left enormous shoes to fill. a daunting task that i know ways on you. today there is a sharp disagreement about the very nature of the supreme court. some people view the court as a hyper- powerful political bran branch. when they grow frustrated with the legislative process and the will of the people, they turn to the courts to try to see their preferred policies in action. for conservatives, we understand the office is true. we read the constitution and see that it imbues the federal judiciary with a much more modest role than the left embraces. judges are not supposed to make law, they are supposed to faithfully apply it. justice scalia was a champion of this modest view of the judicial role. had his vacant seat been filled by barack obama or hillary clinton, justice scalia legacy would have been in great danger. if they had filled the seat, we would've seen a supreme court where the will of the people would have been repeatedly cast aside by a new activist supreme court majority. we would've seen a supreme court majority that viewed itself as philosopher kings who had the power to decide for the rest of us what policy should govern our nation and control every facet of our lives. we would've seen our democratic process controlled by five unelected lawyers here in washington d.c. that would have been a profound and troubling shift in the direction of the supreme court and our nation's future. that is why, after justice scalia's untimely death, the senate chose to exercise our explicit constitutional authority, and we advised president obama that we would not consent to a supreme court nominee until the people, in the midst of a presidential election, were able to choose. for 80 years, the senate had not filled a supreme court vacancy that occurred during a presidential election year end the senate majority decided it would not become the first in eight decades. the people, therefore, had a choice. a choice between an originalist view of the constitution represented by justice scalia or a progressive activist view of the represented by rock obama and and hillary clinton. : and very different vision of a supreme court justice put forthby hillary clinton. and in november the people spoke. in what was essentially referendum on the kind of justice that should replace justice scalia, the people chose originalism, texturism, and rule of law. the people chose judicial humility and chose protecting the bill of rights, free speech, religious liberty, second amendment, rare than handing policymaking authority over to judges on the supreme court. given that history, given the engagement0. the electorate nationally on this central issue, i would suggest that judge gorsuch is no ordinary nominee, because of this unique and transparent process, unprecedented in the nation's history, his nomination carries with it a super legitimacy that is also unprecedented in our nation's history. the american people played a very direct role in helping choose this nominee. like the renowned justice he is set to replace, judge gorsuch is brilliant and has an impeccable academic record, he has refused to legislate his own policy preferences from the bench. while recognizing the pivotal roll the judiciary plays in protecting the bill of rights. on the night he was nonnamed he channeled scalia when he said a judge who likes every -- stretching for results he prefers, rather than those the law demands. that is exactly right. and those words should give comfort to the american people and to my democratic colleagues. and it's worth recalling that our friends on them democratic side of the aisle understand this and indeed not too long ago agreed with it. a decade ago, judge gore such was confirmed by this committee for the federal court of appeals by a voice vote. he was like wise confirmed by the entire united states senate by a voice vote without a single democrat speaking a word of opposition not a word of opposition from minority leader chuck schumer, knock from hard are reid or ted kennedy or john kerry, not even from nors barack obama, hillary clinton or joe biden, not a one of them spoke a word against judge gorsuch's nomination, and the question is what has changed? what has happeninged ten years ago, judge gorsuch was sound objectionable edid not merit even a whisper of disapproval and has had an exemplary record. unfortunately, modern reality suggests that probably not something my democratic colleagues file they can do in today's political environment. many probably believe they have no choice but to try to manufacture attacks against judge gorsuch whether they want to or not just to preserve their own political future and protect themselves from primary back home. we are seeing some of these baseless attacks all right. some democrats tried to slander junior gorsuch as being, quote, against the little guy because he has dared to rule based on the law, the law that congress has passed, and not on the specific identity of the specific litigants before him. this is absurd. for one thing, many of these same critics spent the last eight years attacking the little sisters of the pooh, catholic charity of nuns for having the audacity to live according to their relation beliefs. you need to take a long look in mirror if one day you find yourselves attacking nuns, the little sisters of the poor and then you find yourself orating on the need to protect the little guy. a judge's job is not to protect the little guy or the big guy. a judge's job and a judge swears an oath to uphold the constitution and follow the law, fairly, impartially, and equally for every litigant, little or big. the past weeks or as well some of my democratic colleagues questioned judge gorsuch's independence and suggest his needs to answer questions be in actions and statements and tweets of the president who appointed him. i would ask, was justice ginsburg or justice breyer asked about the sexual harassment suit filed again president clinton by paula jones? no. neither was asked about that. was justice kagan asked about president obama's incendiary comments the state of the union attacking the supreme court for a decision he disagreed with. no, of course not. those questions were not asked because they were inappropriate political questions that have nothing to do with the record of the nominee before this committee. justice beginsburg, justice breyer, justice kagan were not asks to the question asks judge gorsuch should not be either. we should evaluate the nomination on the record, on the merit, and on thatground i have every confidence that judge gorsuch will be confirmed as the next associates justice of the supreme court. >> senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge gorsuch, congratulations on nomination. you're a man after considerable qualifications and experience and i i can say you're a map of strong opinions. but the path before this committize not to determine whether you are a man of convicts, rather, it's incumbent upon us to determine whether the views you espouse andy your interpretation of the constitution take measure of the challenges the american people face every day. they must determine whether your understanding of the founding documents is one that will make real its promise of justice and equality to all americans, black and white, immigrants, native americans, gays, straight, and transgender. we must determine whether your interpretation of our laws and the constitution will unfairly favor corporate interests or families and limit minnesotans their day in court. the justice us on the supreme court wield enormous power over our daily lives and so before this committees whether to advance your nomination, we have an obligation to fully examine your views on these important issues and to make sure those views are not known to the public. that's the whole purpose of the hearings to allow people of minnesota, the american people, to meet you to decide for themselves whether you are qualified to serve. but judge gorsuch, having reviewed your decisions and writings i have concerns. in the days ahead i will use this hearing as an opportunity to better understand your views and perhaps to alleviate those concerns. but in order for the hearing to serve its purpose and order for the public to determine whether you should be confirmed, you must answer the questions this committee poses fully, candidly and without equivocation. i hope that's how you approach our exchanges. think it's important to acknowledge just exactly how it is that you came before the -- us today and we talked about this, namely, the committee's failure to fill one of its core functions immediately following the death of justice scalia, and before president obama even named a nominee, my republican colleagues announced they would not move forward with filling the vacancy until after the presidential election. the majorrite leader said, and i quote, the american people should have a voice in the selection of their next supreme court. this only problem with the majority leader's reasoning is that the american people did have a voice in this decision, twice, nonetheless, when president obama nominated chief judge merritt garland the committee responded by refusing to hold a hearing, truly historic dereliction of duty of the body and the tactic as cynical as it was irresponsible. as a result of my republican colleagues' unpress den obstruction obstructionity. justice scalia's seat has remained empty. then candidate-trump made no secret what kind of nominee he would select. in fact he openly discussed his litmus test. he said that he would, quote, appoint judges very much in the mold of justice scalia, during the final presidential debate then candidate trump said, quote, the justices i'm going to appoint will be prolife. they will have a conservative bent. justice scalia was a man of great conviction and a man of great humor, but justice scalia embraced a rigid view of our constitution, a view blind to the equal dig nate of lgbt people, and hostile to women's reproductive rights, and a view that o. refused to acknowledge the lingering laws and policies that perpetuate the racial divide. judge gorsuch, while no one can dispute that that late judge schoolie's vote -- love of the constitution, the document he revered looks very different from the one i have sworn to defend and it troubles me that this critical junk tour in our nation's history, when our country is so fixated on things that divide us, that president trump would pledge to avoid youris white house views of our founding document seek to reinforce those divisions rather than bridge them. this is an important moment in our history. the public's trust in our government and in the integrity of our is students is at an all-time low. but that erosion of trusttake place overnight and didn't happen on its own. the american people's loss of confidence in our public institutions was quickened by the court. a study published the minnesota law review found that the roberts court is more likely to side with business interests than any supreme court since world war ii. time and time again, the roberts court issued decisions that limit our constituents' ability to participate freely and fairly in our democracy. decisions like shelby county, where the court gutted a landmark civil right laws and removed a crucial check on racial -- race discrimination the ballot box. or like concepcion, the 5-4 decision that allows corporations to place obstacles between consumers and the courthouse door. perhaps most agree just of ash diagree just of all was citizens unitedded which paved the way for individuals and outside groups to spend unlimited sums of money in our election. it's no surprise that during the 2016 election, voters from across the spectrums, democrats and republicans alike, described our system as rigged. that's because it is. and the roberts court bears a great deal of responsibility for that. now, in each one of those 5-4 decisions justice scalia was mook the majority. so this committee sets about the task of evaluating his potential successor, i want to better understand the extent to which you share justice scalia's judicial philosophy and i will be paying close attention to the ways in which your views set you apart. one of the ways in which your views are distinct is in the area of administrative law. just this past august you wrote an opinion in which you suggested that it may be time to reevaluate what is known as the chevron doctrine. now in broad strokes the chevron doctrine privated the court should be -- not overrule agency experts whan their carrying out missions like when the fda sets standards for prescription drugs. this principle recognized our agencies employ individuals with great expertise and laws they're charged with enforcing like eye biologists the fda and where those experts issued rules in highly technical areas judges should defer to their expertise. now, administrative law can be an obscure and sometimes complicated area of the law, but for anyone who carrots about clean air, or clean water, or about the safety of our food and our medicines, it's incredibly important. and chevron simply ensures that judges don't discard an agency's expertise without good reason. justice scalia recognized this to be true. but to those who subscribe to president trump's extreme view, chevron is the only thing standing between them and what the president's chief strategist, steve bannon, called the, quote-unquote, deconstruction of the administrative state. which is short hand for gutting any environmental or consumer protection measure that gets in way of corporate profit margins. speaking before a gathering of conservative activists last month, mr. branyon explained that the president's appointees were selected to bring about that deconstruction and i suspect that your nomination, given your views on chevron, is a key part of that strategy. so this hearing is important. over the next few days you'll have an opportunity to explain your judicial philosophy and i look forward to learning more how you would approach the great challenge lengths facing our country. if of if past is prologue i fear confirming you would guarantee more of the same from the roberts court. decisions that continue to favor powerful corporate interests over the rights of average americans. during your time on the anyone circuit you have sided with corporations over workers, corporations over consumers and corporations over women's health. at this moment in our nation's history calls for is a nominee who is experienced demonstrates an ability to set aside views -- your record suggest that it if confirmed, you will espouse as ideology that has infected the bench that backs big business over individual americans and refuses to see our country as the dynamic and tie verse nation that my constitute opportunities wake up in every morning. as i said before, i see this hearing as an opportunity to learn more about you views and perhaps alleviate some of my concerns. hope that we're able to have a productive conversation. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the senator from nebraska goes i have not talked to the person sitting there and can't get up and go, but i think when you're done, we'll take five minutes and you can do whatever you want to do. >> good ahead, senator from nebraska. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge, this is a special moment in the life of our republic. we have an opportunity to stand back for more than 200 years after history to evault civic health and recommit ourselves to a government that is a intentionally limited to powers intentionally ditched and divided. that is what the next few weeks are about. arguably the most important thing the u.s. senate will do this year is confirm the next supreme court justice. i want to focus my opening bet the simple image of a judge's black robe. a strange thing that judges wear robes. you people are odd. isn't something we should look past, we should look right out. it's not some relic from history, so why do the robes exist, unfashion able and unattractive. the reasons are better summed by a current sitting judge than i might be able to put them. so i quote, donning a robe doesn't make me any smarter bet the robe means something. not just that i can hide the coffee stains on the shirt. it's reminder of what is expected for us, what is called the cold neutrality of an impartial judge and is reminder of the relatively modest station we're meant to occupy in a democratic society. in other countries jumps might ware scarlet, here we're told to buy our own, plain black robes and i can attest to the standard choir jut fit of the local uniform supply store as a good deal. the author of these insightful worths sifts before us, judge neil gorsuch and that statement is an excellent lens through which to view the work of the committee this week and the cork of the court over in the next center andon. want to make three simple overlapping points about the judge's black robe. one, it change they would way that our eyes see the court. two, it reiterates the calling of a judge to the judge and, three, it gives us a special opportunity to teach our kids something about our, their constitution. the enduring paper that defines what your government can and cannot do. first, then, how does it change the way we see the court? win you look at the nine justices sitting together in their robes they blend in with one another. it's hard to tell them apart if you squint, and thus it calls attention to the office rather than to the person. that's because when the judge puts on his or her robe, it forcees their personalities into the background so we can focus on the important but the modest job they have to do, which is to drill down on facts and law. facting are onsive, evaluate -- objective and evaluated against written laws and not against what the judge wishes the law said. someone famously said that, quote, empathy, coals clothe, is an essential ingredient in arriving at a justice decision. this belief is well meant but very foolish. for standing before court your gender, your skin, your bank account, cannot decide your fate. in the same way a judge's race, class and gender should not decide your fate. empathy is actually not the role of the supreme court justice. it is in a sense our role for we are men and women who have been hired and can be fired by the american people to empathize. we're to identify with the hopes and struggles of 320 million americans but the judge instead has a different job. to faithfully apply the law to the facts of the particular case. the judge's robe is there to remind the judge and us of that. that if the facts are on your side, it shouldn't matter which judge you are before. our ideal is where you can trade occupant one judge for another judge and get the same outcome. this is the heart of what we mean when we say that we believe in the rule of law, not of men or of women or of black or white or rich or poor. not to be ruled by a judge's passions or empathy for policy preferences. here's the second thing that the black robe isopod to do, reiterate the calling of the judge back to the judge, bill way of loose analogy miami people across the country sat in church pews yesterday morning and listened to someone preach from behind a big wooden pulpit, wearing a robe. why the pulpit? why the robe? because these things make it harder to see the preacher, they help us all understand that yesterday morning for those in that tradition, knew that it was not about the messenger but that about the message passed on from above. and also to remind the minister of the same cloaking. likewise a good judge on the bench knows that. it's not about you. so don't make it about you. i said it's only a loose analogy because the job of the supreme court justice is absolutely not to deliver some eternal word from god. it's rather to interpret a man-made written constitution as objective live and faithfully also the. when you put on your robe you're cloaking your personal prefer reins and partisan views that it not a red robe for republicans and a blue robe for democrats. we issue here only black robes. this bring us us to the third and final point which is that the judge robe is also to teach our kids howl they should understand their constitution. as all of us learn in schoolhouse rock, the judiciary is not only a separate branch of government from the president and congress but a coequal one. we have different functions but we have the same responsibility to be upholding and to teach the constitution. as a coequal, the court can examine whether the actions of the other two branches are in fact unconstitutional. time and again, at important moments in our nation's history, the court has struck down laws passed by the congress or put a stop to a president idea executive actions. here's what that means. the primary job of the supreme court is not to uphold the will of the majority the moment. the primary job of the supreme court justice is not to reflect the popular opinions of the day. that might sound surprising. don't we live in a democracy where the majority supposed to rule? the answer to that question is only a very qualified yes. for there are critical limits to that statement. the constitution is a decidedly and intentionally anti-majorityairan document. the constitution exists to protect our rights and lischs even when we might hold unpapular views and the role of the supreme court, in protecting rights and liberties, is sometimes precisely to frustrate the will of the majority. think about how the constitution deals with religion and public opinion. the first aimed games at the that every citizen can worship or not worship however their con conscience dictates. if polling showed a 51% popular desire in this country to pass a law making church attendance mandatory or subs die a particular religious denomination the supreme court would rightly strike down such laws this is because in the constitution we decided we would limit our own power. by enacting the constitution we intentionally decided to tie our open hands so that there are certain things that a majority can never do, like invade someone's conscience. and if the majority in its arrogance should at some point in the future seek to cross that line, the supreme court will rightfully shout, no. when congress passes an unconstitutional law, it is in fact the congress that is violating the long-term will of the people. for the judiciary is there to assert the will of the people as embodied in our shared constitution, over and against that unconstitutional but perhaps temporarily popular law. each branch serves the people but in unique ways. it is the job of the congress and the president to act. it is the job of the court often to react. each branch holds the others in check. each branch faithfully seeks to uphold and teach the constitution. each branch serves the american people. but with distinct offices. when a supreme court justice puts on his or her robe we don't want them confusing their job with those of other branches. we want them to policing the structure of our government to make sure that each branch does its job, but only its job. today, judge gorsuch is in front of us wearing a suit and tie. before he can put back on the black robe he must answer this committee's questions. and i expect that mr. gorsuch, the citizen, that policy prefer reins and has desired outcomed but i don't know what they are. and that's a good thing. and i expect by the end of this week, it should be clear that judge gorsuch, the will faithfully embody the spirit of the black robe, for the american people deserve the comfort of a judiciary that is cold and impartial, not seeking to be super legislators. for if a judge seeks to be a superlegislator, they should run for office so the american people can choose to hire them or fire them. but that is not the calling you have before us today. thank you, and thank you to your family for being willing to endure this calling and this service and this hearing. >> four in four minutes i'll call on senator kunes. stand at ease. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> looks like the chairman will have a pretty tight timetable he said just before the recess here that in 4:59 he wall call on 'the next fors to ask question. and four republicans still left to ask questions. senators flake and the newest member of the committee, john kennedy in louisiana. the hearing got underway at 11:00 this morning. day number one of four dives hearings for judge neil gorsuch, nominated on jam 31st to fill the ninth and final seat on the supreme court. today opening statements. you'll hear from the senator, hear. judge will be introduced by the two senators from colorado and tomorrow the questioning begins and wednesday expecting question for george gorsuch with witnesses pro and con, to and against, the. nominee on expected on thursday. just 0 to let you now our schedule. this is a short break and will gavel back in momentarily. we'll reair the hearings beginning tonight at 8:30 eastern here on c-span2, and our coverage tomorrow will be over on c-span3 at 9:30 eastern. tomorrow is the beginning of questioning so young follow that on c-span3. we streaming this online at c-span.org. the committee today, chuck grassley, the chairman, announcing the commit we will vote on the nominee on april 3rd. the examiner writing that the plan for the vote on the gorsuch nomination is two weeks after the start of his nomination hearings and several days before congress adjourn for the easter recess. one more quick note. another major hearing happening on capitol hill today, it's been underway for a couple of hours, still going, the house intelligence committee hearing on russian hacking in the 2016 elections, and you can follow that now, we're streaming that live on c-span.org and live now over on c-span. [inaudible conversations] in the judge is not here yet if you'll take his seats he will be momentarily and we'll start with the senator from delware. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this isn't meant to be funny. but itself bother mist colleagues i'll -- bothers my colleagues i'll stop it. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> senator cohens, would you proceed, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, judge gorsuch,, welcome to your family and friends, congratulations on your new hampshire nation. i look forward to the opportunity to question you i believe my constitutional duty to at individual the president on this nomination to supreme court is among my most important responsibilities as a senator. i nominee confirmed to supreme court shapes our law for decades. justices decide cases that influence thus lives of generations of americans. this hearing is our opportunity to ask you, judge gorsuch, bees in front of the mesh people to better understand how you interpret the text of our constitution and how you apply supreme court precedent. we'll explore how your approach to enter tetting our constitution would impact our lawyers and i'm committed to ensuring the nomination is thorough and fair and i'm hopeful as our hearing proceeds it will promote an important dialogue about the constitution and the courts based on our meeting, now you, too, hope this moment can serve as a shared civic experience. i am considering your nomination with an open mind. and i would ask that you be forthcoming in your responses to our questions. i'd like this hearing to be substantive and reflect the best traditions of the senate. however, i cannot let this moment in commenting on the best traditions of senate, pass wife express my disease regret that chief justice merritt garland was treated with profound historic disrespect, the disrespect shown by senate republicans to chief where i judge merritt garland and president obama and our institutions was unpress denned and deeply damming. for nearly 300 days, longer than any other nominee, chief justice garland's nomination to the supreme court sat without action. my republican colleagues didn't afford him a hearing, and would not give him a vote. i believe we have a responsibility to work to re-elevate our democratic institutions above these narrow partisan politics. i will support a process worthy of its important purpose to carefully elevate and eval was -- excuse me -- care live in evaluate a candidate for the highestcourt in the land. the american people are entitled to see you answer probing, thorough, and challenging questions about your views on a wide range of constitutional i issues. but the breadth of the issues before the supreme court, not be overstated. in the last year the supreme court considered cases involving executive power, i affirmative action, intellectual, gerrymandering and racial bias and voting rights. you have been compared to justice scalia, while it may seem at times to many that the supreme court is engage inside abstract intellectual exercises about originallallism or textualism or living constitution, even a small subset of landmark decisions justice scalia took part in demonstrate otherwise. it's because of supreme court decisions that gay men can no longer be criminally prosecuted for engaging in consensual relationships. that loving same-sex couples can get married in every state in our union, that women cannot be denied attendance at one of the nation's premiere. mel intend -- the juvenile and intellectually disabled people cannot be' executed and that americans obtaining health under in the aca can keep that care at least for now. this cases impacted the lives of real americans and justice scalia applied his understanding of the constitution and dissented in every one of them. i'd like too use these hearings to explore your interpretation of the constitution. i believe that our constitution, which i view as our nation's secular scripture, includes guarantees of equality and approve circumstance hammarks of the modern american society. believe in an independent judiciary that safeguards our rule of law from unlawful indrugses of the most powerful, even the president of the united states. the legitimacy of our supreme court transcends the outcome of any one case but a that legitimacy rests on the unyielding responsibility of justices to put their personal political views aside to decide cases 0 their merit. your nomination has been champion bid the ideologyol where i driven federalist sew sayings and hair tan foundation and interest groups are spending millions advocating for your corporation firm make bus as i told you during our meet little number of to the facts will determine my vote on your nomination. i'm instead looking to you to demonstrate your ability to separate politics from constitutional interpretations. as my colleague from the state of utah, senator 'hatch once neated, judges that say what the law is promote liberty. judges that say what they think the law should be undermine. i've spent a good deal of team reviewing your record and if appreciate that you're an engaging and careful writer. i also have serious questions based on your decisions. what stanes out to me is your tendency to go beyond the issued that need to be resolved in the case before you. i've seen pattern in which you filed dissents from denials of rehearings, concurrence concurrences to your own majority opinions. to explore broader issues that want it necessary to revisit long settled press dent and promote dramatic changes the law. this patterner concerns me because this additional writings hint at an unwillingness to settle on a limited conclusion. and forming a narrow consensus with your colleague. i want to know you would apply the constitution and settled precedent to reach consensus and resolve anywhere rovely the disputes before you. and i want to know that our treasured freedom be safe in your stewardship. our constitution is designed to protect diversity of views that guarantees all of us the free 0 of progression, right to privacy and lisch to make permanent life decisions other, squall protection in the ability to worship freely. take the freedom of religion in the first amendment which says congress shall make no law respect appearing establish '0 religion or protecting he free exercise thereof. we must balance respect for faith. as my colleagues know i studied both law and divinity in school and some of the most formative and meaningful experience of my life have been guided by the christian faith. the command to care for in the most vulnerable among us inspires my, who and service as a senator, and i value opportunities to share with my colleagues in prayer. throughout our nation's history, religion has inspired countless acts of charity, kindness, and good works. but when i think about the founder's wisdom to progress both church and state by ensuring they're separation i'm in awe. our united states were found by people who came here from men reasons, seeking opportunity, freedom from oppression and hoping to bell free to practice they're faith. from pilgrims pilgrims tole -- n has been home to many faints and the genius was to abandon the european practice of having a state religion supported by state taxes. now today across the u.s., churches and mosques, synagoguee temples, find their oway free from state enter interns. the supreme court over deck tates has south to strike and preserve a careful bale between the free exercise right of religious minorities and be power of legislatures to compel compliance with neutral laws. recently, the court has decided several landmark and controversial indications, and the hoppy lobby case the free religious exercise -- and another important line of cases and and due process rights have been held to guarantee a right to privacy and self-determination, even when long-standing practices and religiously motivated stat us or challenged as a result. look forward to exploring these decisions with you. religious freedom must be freedom not to have our values and practices pushed into the public square. while other nations are 0 besieged by sectarian wars, at a time -- in our history sincerely held relation beliefs haven invoked to deny other americans. and lays prohibiting interavailable marriage or reproductive rights. we live today in tumultussous times and the supreme court will hear many important cases and it's important we understand your values and framework for interpreting the constitution. on areas as important as executive power, national security, the independence of the judiciary, defer residence to agencies and personal liberty. there are disturbing developments that i see in our modern environment as a front to religious freedom and personality liberty. donald trump campaigned on putting in place a muslim ban and signed on unlawful and discriminatory orders them new administration's justice department has withdrawn guidance supporting protection for transgender individual and the attorney general testified at his confirmationat secular concerns may thereof -- our next supreme court justice will play a pivotal role in sustaining and defending our rights during this critical time for our country and in the years to come. america need as supreme court justice who while protect the constitution, not one who will countenance the faith or fear of some as a justification for infridging the liberty of many. it's against that backdrop, judge, will be seeking to understand your commitment to the rule of law, guarantees of the first amendment and individual liberty. look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. now i go to senator flake. >> thank you in chairman. and thank you, judge gorsuch forking into here and thank you to your family as well and your many friends and associates who have come to support you. that says a lot for you to have so many willing to be here and i've been astounded at the number of op-eds i've read and statements i've heard from those not just those that you agree with but those who don't always agree with you. that says a lot about you. i had a speech to deliver a while ago, and when it was fed into the teleprompter, your name wasn't as familiar as some, and it replaced it with judge grouch throughout the entire time and i had to be careful, but -- i think it's safe to say by the end of the week every spell checker in the country will know your name, and judge grouch is about as far as you can get from judge gorsuch in terms of your temperment, so i comment you. that may change by the end of the week as well, though, i have to say. [inaudible] >> i don't think so. one of the most consequential decision a president makes who he or shell will select to fill vacancies on the supreme court. this is a lifetime appointment and means a man or. who who is select will likely be interpreting our laws for decades to come. judge antonin scalia demonstrated how much one justice can impact and shift the gravity of the court, and no justice in recent memory has so fundamentally influenced the trajectory of the supreme court, or our approach to reading the law. he did this with an unshakable commitment to an originalist interpretation of constitution and textualist approach to statutes. judge scalia's passing marked a watershed moment for our -- the future of our judiciary, one law professor reaked, quote, who left the legal system survive is that people -- what left the legal system survive is people in power such as scalia believed the system come colls they're individual judgments. what will happen to the law without justice scalia to believe in it. farm the president nominated a jurist who believe in the rule of law. in meen meeting meetinh judge gorsuch i was prim else bid if is respect for the law and his commitment to service. i've been particularly struck by his recognition that, quote it i it for congress and not the courts to wry new law some a justice into headache decision on what they law depends not an outcome he or she desires as we discussed in my office you said that when you don that black robe, you understand that you are not a a legislator. that is important. it was brought up before that my colleague says that it judge gorsuch is pro business or against the little guy. the report suggests the faithfully applies the law and the law as enacted by congress, good judges don't decide cases based on how big the guy is, but based on the law and the facts. i'm not alone in thinking that. harvard law professor feldman, self-described liberal wrote that, quote, sidings for workers against employers is not a -- it's a political stance and justices, including progressive justices, shouldn't decide cases based won the parties are. the think judge gorsuch's opinions show that. he decided cases based on what the law sauce, not who the parties are. the judge has remindes us that while we as legislators may appeal to our own moral convictionness shaping the law, judges in a democratic society should not decide cases based on their own moral convictions on policy preferences. with judge gorsuch is thing the record shows we can be confident he will read the law as written and not legislate from the bench. with regard to the separation of powers judge gorsuch has cautioned against, quote, governmental encroachment on the people's lischs which could occur should the political majority of the legislative and executive branches be per midsted to decide cases and the political unresponsive judiciary branch bev allowed to create our execute policies. for my part, i'm excited to confirm a justice who reveres the separation of powers as a central principle of our constitution. judge gorsuch has demonstrated support for religious liberties. our country has always valued the right of individuals to practice their faith according to dictates of their own conscious and wrote our relation freedom statute, quote, don't just apply to protect popular religious beliefs. it also perhaps its most -- it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nation's long held as separation to serve as a refuge for religious tolerance. the supreme court later agreed that it is the government's job to protect an individual's ability to practice their religion, not to instruct them how to practice their religion. now, finally, as an arizonan i'm proud of the fact that george gorsuch is a fellow westerner. where your from influences your understand offering cultural and regional sensitivities, and the current markup of the supreme court has an unmistakable lack of geographic diversity. of the eight current justices, five of. the were born in new york or new jersey. we say in arizona, and elsewhere, new york city, this is nice to have someone from the west with a western perspective, that fortunately judge gorsuch fits that bill. when i met judge gorsuch earlier this week we talked about our respective western backgrounds. i told him about my days greg up on a cattle ranch in rural arizona. he told me that his heart has always been in the american west. you learn a lot about a person by how they spend their time with their friends and family. there's no mistaking it with judge gorsuch. he is a westerner through and through. not what makes judge gorsuch a true we werer is more than just where he lives or what his personal interests are. in the west pre pride ourselves on being a free people with strong communities, and limited government. judge gorsuch's juris prudence reflect is what every westerner knows to be true, and intrusive federal government cannot interfere with the ability of western states to govern themselves and perhaps more than anything, it will be jump gorsuch's western perspective that enreichs at the bait on the -- debate on the court for years to come, that's been loot said about what happened with nomination ol' merit rid garland i find its striking and revealing that one of the first qualifies that judge gorsuch made when he received this nomination was to merritt garland, his frenched think that says a lot about -- his friend, i think that says a lot about the man and certainly what happened here shouldn't reflect on judge gorsuch, but i appreciate the temperment that you have and your willingness to subject yourself and your family and friends to this process. i look forward to the arrest of the hearing. yield back. >> senator flake now. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, judge. i live in the western part of connecticut. [laughter] >> i love colorado and my first job was on a farm in nebraska, where my grandfather raised corn and cattle so we can go into into commonalities but i want to join in thanking you and your family and say that despite the hardships of going through the process i suspect there are quite a few lawyers in connecticut who wouldn't mind changing places with you but i also want to thank one group that perhaps should be giving gratitude and that is your feel he judge -- fellow judges on the fer bench. some are here. have know doubt that many are watching. i've had the honor in the last 40 years to appear before many of them and they make sacrifices that are often unappreciated by most americans who enjoy the benefits of their service, often financial sacrifices, personal sacrifices, sometimes even physical threats as happened when the schools were desegue grate gaited on o are when women's clinics were protected in the united states, and so i want to thank them and through you, express my gratitude. the independence of those judges has never been more threatened. and never more important. and a large part of the threat comes from the man who nominated you. who has launched a campaign of vicious and relentless attacks on the credibility and capacity of our judiciary to serve as a check on lawless executive actions. his demeaning and dispaging comments about the judiciary have shaken the foundations of respect for judicial rulings. rulings that hold the president can'table to the -- accountable to the people and our constitution. respect for the opinions of our judges is fundamental, as you well know. without it our democracy cannot function. alexander hamilton said that the judiciary is the least dangerous branch because it has the power of neither the purse nor the sword. essential to its power to protect us is its respect and trust and credibility and the president has gravely undermind it and that is why i believe you have a special responsibility here this week. which is to advocate and defend the independence of our judiciary against those kinds of attacks. it isn't enough to do it in the privacy of my office or my colleagues' behind closed doors. i believe that our system really requires and demands that you do it publicly and explicitly and directly. we meet this week in the midst of a looming constitutional crisis. ... is no longer speculation. so the independence of the judiciary is more important than ever, and your defense of it is critical. you are also the nominee of a president who set a set of litmus tests, saying that his nominee would be pro-life and pro-second amendment and other conservative vent. in fact, he said he would nominate someone, and encoding almost exactly in one of the debates, who would automatically overturn roe v. wade. so again, if you fail to be explicit and forthcoming and definite in your responses we have to assume that you will pass the truck litmus test. your nomination also impose on you -- trump litmus test -- a special burden because of the process that brought you here. the president has largely outsourced the selection process to conservative groups. he specifically referred to them on may 11 when he said that a list would be prepared by the heritage foundation and the federalist society on june 13. he said quote, we are going to have a great judges, conservative, by the federalist society, end quote. you must be clear that your views are not theirs. and while under ordinary circumstances this committee might be satisfied with the platitudes of i cannot reach conclusions, or state conclusions, because of the possibility that i do have to consider a case before the court, these times are not ordinary. the rule of law is more than the pillars and the judicial robes that people ordinarily associate with the united states supreme court. justice has a human face and voice, and as you know from being in the trenches, real clients with realize. and the law has real consequences in their lives. i met with the trucker who was fired by trans am trucking, when he left his truck in subzero weather. that truck was disabled. it couldn't be driven and he was freezing. i met with patricia who was denied relief by the court after suffering very serious injuries resulting from a defective product. i met with the children of grace wong, who was denied leave by kansas state university, even though she was suffering from cancer. i am troubled by the results in those cases, with those real people. but also for the broader issues that those decisions reflect in workers safety and consumer protection. as well as the rights of women to healthcare and reproductive decisions that are protected by the fourth amendment. and the right of privacy goes beyond just women's healthcare. it also relates to surveillance and government snooping, and write that a central to our democracy. let me just close by saying that you have a special obligation to be forthcoming about your views, not to prejudge the merits of a particular case before the court, but you share your views on long-standing precedents, that the president who nominated you indicated would be overturned. and you have an obligation to be forthcoming as well because the decision before us is not about justice scalia, nor is it about your confirmation ten years ago. the supreme court is different. the supreme court is the ultimate resort of justice in this country. and as much as you may have encountered little difficulty ten years ago, you now have a record, and we are here to judge of that record, and to make sure that our decisions, and i agree with my colleagues that it will be probably one of the most consequential and profoundly important decisions that i make as a united states senator, is the right one for the country, and will, above all, make sure that the rule of law is preserved for real people with real lives. and that we assure that the independence of our judiciary will continue to protect us from overreaching and tyranny and the constitutional crisis that is now of real danger before us. take you for being here. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank yous senator blumenthal. now senator from idaho. >> thank you, mr. chair been. judge gorsuch, welcome him and congratulations on the high honor of your nomination. much of the discussion surrounding this nomination has centered on entering the key question, what kind of justice should serve on the united states supreme court? someone a judge in their own making, predictable, ideological and political. others regard the role of a judge as a final arbiter of justice clothes and those dark black robes. unquestioned and sit on an elevated platform while about the court proceedings. in recent years selecting judges has become more about a numbers game with the courts, measured at least in part by comparing vacancies filled by each president. often, in fact, as recent as last week and this week, we read about federal court proceedings invariably coupled with the name of the judge and the president who appointed him or her. because then you shopping has become all too common a practice today, the individual judge can become more important than the facts of the case. in this scenario the judge serves not justice but politics in another form. whenever congress considers a judicial nomination people talk earnestly about the importance of independence. for some that work flows from the center work of the founders of our constitution who created a separate branch of government empowered to review laws passed by the legislature and signed and executed by the president in the executive branch. two others come independence of more about giving judges the power to issue decisions without personal consequence. the true american vision is one of which the judge fairly and impartially find the facts and applies the law. the law is supreme. the facts decide the day. the judge could be substituted with another, and the outcome remains the same. a president who nominated him or her is never mentioned in the article about the decision, and venue shopping is a a relic of another era. this is the vision most americans have of the proper judge on the federal bench. as i reflect on the nomination of judge gorsuch, i think back to our meeting soon after his nomination was announced. i've met several supreme court nominees in my service in the senate. all of them have impressive credentials and legal experien experience. but judge gorsuch stands out for a notable reason. he understands and is focused on the principle that a judge is the servant of the law, not the maker of it. one of his comments during our visit still resonates with me. he said my personal views are irrelevant as a judge. isn't that the ideal illustration of a judge steadfastly committed to the law? to quote the late justice scalia, if you're going to be a good and faithful judge you have to resign yourself to the fact that you are not always going to like the conclusions you reach. if you like them all the time you are probably doing something wrong. judge gorsuch recognizes that the law may be imperfect being the product of an imperfect system, but there is a remedy to the imperfection of law. the political system directly accountable to the public. the people choose policymakers, not federal judges. the law can frustrate. in black and white it is start and change come slowly and often deliberately, just as our forebears designed. law that can change in a moment and capriciously is inherently destabilizing. an activist judge who makes law plants insecurity in our system. rather, our constitution provides for law to be enacted legislatively with the sanction of the american people through the ballot box. policy changes advanced by judges can be reversed. and reversed again. law properly grounded in the democratic and political process cannot. equal protection under the law. justice is blind. these are just catchy phrases that a backdoor time in civic classes. these are guiding principles of our republic and reaffirmed in the 14th amendment to our constitution. fundamentally, each of us should know courts will find for us when the law is on our side. whether we are rich or poor, strong or weak, or a big guy or a little guy, that's principled justice. some may not like a particular law. that's fair and not unexpected. but the remedy for this disagreement is not changing judges, but changing the law. fortunately, our system of government as exact solution available to us, passing a new law through deliberate, careful and publicly accountable political processes. no one seriously questions judge gorsuch's fitness and capabilities are on highest the highest court in our land. his credentials are exemplary. he is widely respected for his intellect, his judgment and his modesty. his admirers stand the political spectrum. judge gorsuch is intelligent and open-minded. he is exactly the model for an appointment to the united states supreme court. mr. chairman, i look forward to hearing from the nominee himself. the next few days will prove extraordinarily insightful as we discussed judge gorsuch his philosophy of the jurisprudence, what animates him to interpret the law, and his vision for the federal judiciary. i look forward to this hearing. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator from idaho. now the senator from north carolina. >> thank you, mr. chair. judge gorsuch, thank you for being here, and congratulations to you and to your family and friends who are either here present or watching on tv. i've had a couple of opportunities to be in your presence, and i really appreciate your calm, respective demeanor and i -- a heart rate of about four. before i get into a few brief comments add a want to be buried so that we can get to the comments and to the questions and move your nomination forward, i do think there is a little bit of confusion right now i'm on, in terms of the comments made by some of my colleagues. this is not directed you, judge gorsuch, perhaps to those watching. the nominee before us today is not president trump. the nominee before us today is not a leader mcconnell. and it's not judge merrick garland. it's one of the most extraordinarily talented and capable people that we could possibly have going to the supreme court. so i hope that this nomination hearing focuses on the one person before us who will go, and i believe will fill the sprinkler. i consider one of the most important jobs that i have as your senator in the two years i've been here. nothing rises to the level of imports of your nomination and the composition of the supreme court. they asked -- outlast for life, many president and many senators began to fix all americans and there will be judgment that you will render that will last for decades. i have no doubt that you have the qualifications. senator graham, i have associate myself with senator grams comments. the only reason i didn't pursue your academic line of schools main had to do with admission requirements, but i appreciate the hard work that you did academically i appreciate the hard work that you did as a litigator and the work that you're done as a judge. i think it is truly extraordinary. i want to just the back to a comment or a conversation we had in my office. i mentioned to you in my office that it don't like activist judges. your conservative or liberal. it's not the role. the activists are us. we get elected. we got to the people, convince them we want to make changes. we passed laws. your job is to interpret them as a judge. i believe you responded to me that you fully understood that your role else squarely within article iii and that michael squarely within article one, and you saw that very bright line between the two. and i think you're going to do a great job. i think in your nomination acceptance, your quote was it is for congress and not the courts to write new laws. it is of the role of judges to apply not alter the work of the people's representatives. there have been some comments to be made about cases that you take up, and i think they probably in some cases relate to the instance where instances where you weren't really happy about the outcome. and i look forward to getting to some of those. i think that two or three of them mention that i intend to go through as a part of my review of your summary of jurisprudence. there's a number of examples were you interpreted the law. you do not become an activist. you didn't allow your empathy or your sympathy for a case to influence what your job is. i for one find that inspiring. and so, mr. chair, i'm going to get my comments short not for lack of desire to want to speak more about judge gorsuch's extraordinary background and history qualification for the job, because it desperately want the american people to get you to spend more time talking. and i spend more time listening so they recognize the historic opportunity we have two confirm you to the supreme court, and i look forward to the remaining testimony. spirit i now would call on -- hawaii. >> thank you, mr. chairman. aloha, judge gorsuch. thank you as well of course for being here. this hearing is about more than considering a nominee for the supreme court. it's about the future of our country. it's about the tens of millions of people who work hard everyday, played by the rules but don't get ahead. it's about the working poor who are one paycheck away from being on the streets. it's about muslim-americans who are victims in every nude wave of hate crimes, asking -- new -- asking for protection from the courts. it's about women having the choice of what to do with their bodies our bodies. it's about lgbtq americans who want the same rights as everyone else. for me this hearing is about the people in this country who are getting screwed every single stinking minute and hour of the day. i got into public service to help these people, and my question over the coming days will draw on their experience as well as my own. my story might be unique for a united states senator but it is destroyed that is familiar for millions of americans in our country. when i was nearly eight years old old my mom changed my life when she brought me to this country from japan fleeing an abusive marriage. back then there were no religious test to determine who could emigrate to this country. there were no language requirements. you didn't need any special skills. if president eisenhower pursued the same policies president trump would like to, it's very possible i would not be here today. i always knew i wanted to get back to my state and my country, but i never thought politics would be the past i choose. but the vietnam war open my eyes to how public service could create social change. i joined campus protests, question why we're sending so many young men to die in a far-off country. a small group of us decided that in order for things to change we needed to do much more than protest. many of us ran for office because we needed to take a seat at the table to be able to fight help make lives better. why i'm here today. over the past few months i've heard from thousands of people who are deeply worried about their families, their kids, and the future of our country under the trump administration. many of them are worried about what will happen if you are confirmed to the bench. apart from the legal analysis whenever a case comes before a judge, it invariably involves real people, people who are often there because i have experienced the worst day in their lives. whether they are victims of a crime, suffered a serious injury due to corporate malfeasance or because they've lost their livelihood due to discriminatory behavior from their employee, employer, each of them is looking to the courts to protect their interests and their rights. during our meeting i was encouraged when you said that the purpose of article iii of the constitution was to protect the rights of the minority through access to the courts. but as i've reviewed your opinions i have not seen that the rights of minorities are a priority for you. in fact,, a pattern jumps out at me. you really seem to find in favor of the little guy. in trans am trucking, your argument was the catalyst just but in firing an employee who faced a choice between operating his vehicle in an unsafe manner and freezing to death in his truck. in a number of other cases including thompson school district, your decisions made it more difficult for families with special needs children to get the help they needed as the law intended. and planned parenthood versus utah -- your dissent was far too deferential to the decisions of a governor who based those decisions on unverified information. in burwell versus hobby lobby your opinion justify denying access to contraception based on the argument that corporations like people can hold religious beliefs. the facts in each of these cases might be different, but there is a clear pattern to your writing. you consistently choose corporations and powerful interests over people. but more than that you've gone to great lengths to disagree with your colleagues on the tenth circuit so that you can explain why some obscure or novel legal interest page and at a particular word in statute must result in finding for a corporation instead of an individual who rest suffered real life harm. this tendency demonstrates the commitment to the ideology, over common sense, and indeed the purpose of the law and it is deeply troubling. for example, i get in trans am trucking, you fixated on the plain meaning of the word operate, despite choosing a definition out of context and using it at odds of the core purpose of the statute, which was a safety purpose. and a longhorn service company, you found a difference between a floor hole and a floor opening in order to side with a corporation trying to avoid a citation for safety issues. you found a difference in these terms between a floor hole and a floor opening that the rest of your colleagues on the tenth circuit did not. truly a case of distinction without a difference. it's like arguing whether your nomination is because of a vacant seat or an opening on the supreme court. these decisions affect not just the individuals who came before you, as a supreme court justice your decisions will have lasting consequences for the rest of us. during the campaign president trump made it very clear that he had a series of litmus tests for his supreme court nominee. over a two-year period the president said that his nominee must favor overturning roe v. wade, deny women access to health care on the basis of religious freedom, and upholding the heller decision on guns which nra believes prevents congress, state or local governments from passing common sense gun safety legislation. each of these tests would have a profound impact on the lives of every american. donald trump's litmus test for supreme court nominees were crystal clear. in nominating you, judge gorsuch, i can only conclude that you met the presidents litmus tests. your ideological perspective, or as some would say here, your judicial philosophy on these issues matter because if you are confirmed, you will have a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. in our cozy meeting you said you have a heart -- courtesy -- so we need to know what is in your heart. we need to understand how you will grapple with the number of important questions the court will be asked to consider in the years ahead. with a court protect the rights of working people and our middle class, or side with corporations who want to dismantle, organized labor in america? will the court uphold a woman's constitutional right to choose or updated decades of legal precedent to overturn roe v. wade? will the court protect free and fair elections by stopping unfettered campaign spending, or allow corporations and the ultrarich to hijack our democracy with the dark money? with the court protect the right to vote for all americans, or allow states to use voter fraud as an excuse to disenfranchise vulnerable communities? with the court protect our land, water, earth from decades of environmental regulation? with the court protect access to our justice system or slanted courthouse door to all but the wealthiest among us? judge gorsuch, my colleagues, this is not merely a hearing to consider the confirmation of one supreme court justice. no. we are considering the affirmation of our countries values, the supreme court is not just interpret our laws. the supreme court shapes our society. will we be just, what we be fair, will america be a land of exclusivity for the few or the land of opportunity for the many? will we need a compassionate and tolerant america that embraced my mother, my brothers and me? many decades ago. make no mistake, a supreme court vacancy isn't just another position we must fill in our federal judiciary. a supreme court vacancy is a solemn obligation we must fulfill for our future generations. let's treated as such. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator from hawaii. now the senator from louisiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. how are you doing, judge? >> great. thank you very much. >> i walked by the supreme court the other day. i live nearby, and on that building, as many of us know, are the words justice, the guardian of liberty. now, we live in -- but i think those words were sacred, sacred to most americans. and they really tell us everything we need to know about the importance of the united states supreme court, in my judgment. without justice, without equal treatment by the law, liberty, which is why our country was founded, becomes an empty promise. so even though it's easy to look to elected officials, the president, congress, governors as last protectors of liberty, we as americans have entrusted that. i think we can all agree, to our supreme court. and that's why, in my judgment, this hearing is important. and that's why we need, if we can, to go beyond politics, beyond the person who lives in the white house, beyond whatever the issue of the day happens to be, and we need to try to truly understand our role in this process. which is to advise and consent. i hope we can focus on temperament, on legal philosop philosophy, on legal reasoning, on qualifications, on experien experience. and for just a minute i hope we can forget that we are all politicians here, you excluded, and focus instead on the judiciary and the role we get to play in affecting that most of american institutions, the united states supreme court. .. if you want to hide something from him in a law book. you obviously don't have that problem. you appear to me to be exceptionally well-qualified to be a supreme court justice. i was especially impressed with your doctorate of philosophy in law. from oxford this is the most difficult terminal degree in the world. you also attended columbia and harvard and those are satisfactory as well [i've read about 20 of your opinions and my favorite is a.m. the homes. your dissent was short, four pages but you packed a lot in those four pages. as far as i'm concerned, that dissent should be required reading for every law student. all i can say about reading those 40 opinions, some of which i agree with and some of which i don't, you write really, really well. your opinions are engaging, whether you agree with them or not. judge gorsuch is direct, clear, can i and you have a clean grasp of the law. there's no boilerplate language that lawyers often put in their briefs and sometimes judges do as well. i also might add -- another thing struck me about your opinions you show concern for the parties, you use their names, you don't refer to the parties as respondents, you call them by their name. i like that. judge gorsuch respect board judicial independence and he's an unyielding support of the separation of powers and i believe that he genuinely understands and values the role of the judiciary as a check on both the legislative and executive branches. that's very, very important to me. as are we all, i'm fond of the constitution and the structure that it creates, separating power so that no branch of government had bully another or bully the american people. one of the main purposes of the united states constitution, in my opinion, is to tell us when to stop. to reaffirm that the authority of the state over its people is limited and it is finite. let me be blunt. i'm looking for a judge, not an ideologue. i don't want somebody in the unite states supreme court who is blinded. i'm not interested in people who want to use the judiciary to advance their own personal policy goals whether they are to the right or left. i want a judge to apply the law as it is, as best he understands it, not to try to reshape the law as he wishes it to be. i also want a person who is intellectually curious, with ernest and his desire to rule fairly and who is willing to really fight for his view of justice. i guess what i want is a cross between socrates and dirty harry. [laughter] i believe you might be that person. let me say one final thing. i am an officer of the court. as a lawyer, as are you. none of the questions i'm going to you today are designed to trick you, as if i could. nor are they designed to suggest that you should violate the code of conduct for the united states judges which says a judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. , nor will my questions be designed to cause you to violate rule .10 a of the american bar association model code of the judicial conduct which is as you know states, a judge judge shall not make any public comment, any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the unfairness of a matting untreated matter pending in court. finally, nor will my questions be designed to ask you to violate rule 2.10 be of the american bar association model code judicial conduct which states a judge shall not in connection with cases cont

dan harris, abc news, new york. >> i think dan harris was blushing there.k -- it's only awkward because he liked it. >> you got a gorgeous little body there. gaga tweeted him years ago about trying to do this. took this long to get their schedules together. they're beth pul both pumped. >> i didn't see any cars, how is it a drag race if there are no cars. >> honey, that's not what, i'll explain it for you. >>> this morning on "world news now" -- deadly wildfires across multiple states. >> more than a million acres burned with the fast-moving flames claiming more lives. thousand of people have been forced to escape the fires, as ak with tells us what is coming next. >> tragic incident in mississippi where a train plowed into a bus that was stopped on the tracks. multiple deaths reported from the scene as investigators try to piece together why that bus was stopped in the first place. >> security breach at the cia may have just caused the biggest leak in the agency any history. wiki leaks releasing classified documents that could reveal method of the country'