their daughters were present as were the widows of justice justices. all the judge gorsuch will begin work firstnd will hear his case later this week. he will not be involved in a case that his colleagues recently heard. this is a case that will decide when the government must compensate property owners for regulations on how a person's property can be used or sold. the takings clause and whether adjoining lots of land by a person or group should be considered separately together when a taking requires the government to pay land owners. the fifth amendment requires just compensation when the government takes property for public use. justice roberts: we will hear vs. wisconsin. >> the fundamental and fairness of this case was illustrated by one fact. if everyone else in the world other than the murr siblings , that owner can develop the lot at the murrs cannot. justice: suppose three years from now, the lots, more valuable than that two lot singly. each lot would be worth $100,000, that these bigger lots are worth $500,000. the county wants a fire stati

yarger: yes, justice kagan. justice kagan: ok. so it really all does depend on whether we think it's their money or it's your money. mr. yarger: that's -- that's correct. justice kagan: so if this were your money on this -- on the simple theory of, there once was a conviction, it once was valid, we collected the money at that time, and that makes it our money going forward forever and ever, no matter what happens to the conviction. if that's your theory, it's not only true, as the chief justice said, that you wouldn't have to provide any remedy or any process for getting that money back. right? you could just keep it and say, doesn't -- you can prove your innocence, you cannot prove your innocence. too bad. it's our money. you agree with that. i think you said that to the chief. mr. yarger: that's correct, justice kagan. justice kagan: and it would also be true, i would think, that even if that conviction were improperly gained, not just in the sense that it was later vacated, but let's say it was the state's fault that that convi

in just a moment, justice gorsuch will be sworn in by justice kennedy. a great man of outstanding accomplishment. throughout his nearly 30 years on the supreme court, justice kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service. we owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. and i am honored that he is with us today. [applause] this is a very, very special moment because many years ago a young neil gorsuch started his legal career as a law clerk to justice kennedy. you remember that, right? [laughter] president trump: it is a fitting to his that he will he come the first ever supreme court justice to serve with one of his former law clerks. that is sort of a big deal, isn't it? i sort of like that. that is sort of goods. it has never happened before. that is pretty it. also shows you have a lot of respect for this man. very good. we are thrilled to share this historic moment with justice kennedy. with all of you here today. and with all americans watching home. justice gorsuch, i again congratulate you and your entire family and i wish god'

justice alito: but why -- justice kagan: mr. layton -- justice alito: why would that be so? mr. layton: i suspect because the missouri courts are trying to provide as much assistance as they can within the realm that they feel that the missouri constitution permits. justice alito: oh. so suppose you -- we have a school that's run by the trinity lutheran church of columbia. and then next to it we have a jesuit elementary and secondary school. one would be eligible, one would not be eligible? mr. layton: it would depend on the nature of the two. in fact, if the trinity lutheran went back to the position it was in in 1985 where the preschool was an independent, although somewhat affiliated, entity using the church's facilities, presumably under some kind of a lease arrangement, the state likely would have said yes, because that would be consistent. justice alito: but even though they're equally controlled by a religious organizations? mr. layton: no. i don't think -- it would be a fine line in terms of the control. but no, if the organization itself, the church itself rather than t

justice gorsuch: so help me god. justice kennedy: congratulations. [applause] justice gorsuch: i see before me so many to whom i owe so much. i know i would not be here today without your friendship and support. thank you, all, from the bottom of my heart. i want to thank the president for nominating me and for the great confidence and trust he has imposed in me. i want to thank the vice president for his constant encouragement and friendship. it is not possible to mention here everyone i should mention, but i would be remiss if i did not thank don mcgann and every person in the white house counsel's office for their tremendous and tireless support. i want to thank kelly ayotte and my day-to-day team for their humor, for their sage advice, for their faith, as we spent months and so many miles trooping together through the senate complex. i want to thank every single person -- and there are so many -- in the white house and the department of justice who worked so many late nights and long weeks on my behalf. i want to thank senators mcconnell and gras

. >>> the supreme court has a new justice after justice neil gorsuch was sworn in monday more than two months after being nominated by president trump. he replaces the late justice antonin scalia who died in february of last year. chief justice john roberts administered the constitutional oath of office in private monday morning before a public swearing-in at the white house which was administered by justice anthony kennedy. in a 2009 documentary, some of the current justices talked about their first experiences on the court. here is some of what they had to say. >> the court is about to welcome a new associate justice. how long does it take? you talked about walking into conference for the first time. when you've watched new justices come on board since you arrived, how long does it take before they get it? >> oh, i don't know. i think we all learn at different paces, but when i came to the court, i asked that same question, because it was very important to me to figure out when would i get my sea legs. and the common number was five years. and justice white would often say it takes a

justice roberts: we h

in just a moment, justice gorsuch will be sworn in by justice kennedy. a great man of outstanding accomplishment. throughout his nearly 30 years on the supreme court, justice kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service. what he owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. and i am honored that he is with us today. [ applause ] this is a very, very special moment. because many years ago, a young neil gorsuch started his legal career as a law clerk to justice kennedy. you remember that, right? it is a fitting testament to justice kennedy's impact that upon giving the oath to justice gorsuch, he will become the first ever supreme court justice to serve with one of his former law clerks. that's sort of a big deal, isn't it? i sort of like that. that's sort of good. [ applause ] it has never happened before. that's pretty good. it also shows that you have a lot of respect for this man. that's very good. we're thrilled to sre this historic moment with jtice kennedy, with all of you here today, and with all americans watching us at home. j

you see some of the justices walking in right now. i see justice ginsburg and justice thomas. all of the justices are expected to be present for this swearing in. >> yeah, this is a big day, right? it's been over a year since scalia died and you are absolutely right, kate, no rest for the wary. because gorsuch has completed that grueling confirmation process. he met with over 80 senators. he did over 20 hours of congressional testimony and now he's got to get to work as early as thursday. he will meet behind closed doors for the closed door regular conference with his new colleagues and they'll discuss cases that could be coming to the court. haven't been accepted yet. but there are some big issues there. a second amendment case about conceal and carry. there is a voter i.d. case about north carolina strict voter i.d. law that was struck below and an interesting religious liberty case about a cake artist who did not want to make a cake to celebrate the wedding reception of a same-sex couple. those are big, meaty issues. the court could take some of them. and then not only that

ishink the person who happiest is the departing junior justice which is justice kagan.ob ofey have the opening the door if anyone during the conference. they have to answer the telephone, most often at all they have to stay after we leave all the cases we granted review. she relays all of those to the entourage from the clerk's office and to the press office. has one junior justice more assignment and they have to to serve on the cafeteria committee. battle but uphill they did succeed in getting a frozen yogurt machine. [laughter] it is musical chairs because our seats change in the court. you ask about change with the new justice coming on board, i is whene biggest change justice o'connor retired. changesve been other but not with that kind of leaving us.of but just from a personal point of view when there are two of us we did not look alike or speak alike. but when justice o'connor left men andre these mostly their there was this small little woman. us, it is muchof better. >> i have talked about my who changedfessor the way i read and write. said whento what you you

i read books on justices and what made them good justices. i did everything possible to inform myself and figure this job out. after three years, i am still learning. i can't tell you that i am a perfect justice, far from it. i don't think there is such a thing. one of my colleague's mentors, john paul stevens, who retired when he was 90 years old, one day said to me when i was expressing my doubts, said, sonia, nobody is born a justice. you are born a person, and you learn and grow into everything you do. so have i gotten there? no. i am working at getting there. every day in this job i think about what i do, i reflect on what i am doing. every time i have a discussion with my colleagues and something does not go the way i want it to, i go back and rethink it and figure out what i did wrong, and then i try a different approach the next time. and if i draft something that people don't like and i have to make changes, i think about what they are telling me and what i did and i try to go back and avoid that next time. it is not a perfect proces

justice gorsuch: so help me god. justice kennedy: congratulations.applause] justice gorsuch: i see before me so many to whom i owe so much. i know i would not be here today without your friendship and support. thank you all, from the bottom of my heart. i want to thank the president for nominating me and for the great confidence and trust he has reposed in me. i want to thank the vice president for his constant encouragement and friendship. it is not possible to mention here everyone i should mention, but i would be remiss if i did not thank don mcgann and every person in the white house counsel's office for their tremendous and tireless support. i want to thank kelly ayotte and my day-to-day team for their humor, for their sage advice, for their faith, as we spent months and so many miles trooping together through the senate complex. i want to thank every single person -- and there are so many -- in the white house and the department of justice who worked so many late nights and long weeks on my behalf. i want to , too, thank senators mcconnell and

by contrast, justice ginsburg earned 93 votes. justice breyer earned 87. so mr. president, we are offering president trump and our friends on the other side a way forward. they don't have to break the rules to get a justice on the bench. they don't have to break the senate confirmation process, a fundamentally weakening then constitutional principle of advice and consent to get justice on the bench. the president, president trump could simply consult with members of both parties to try and come up with a consensus nominee who could get approved and meet a 60-vote threshold. is the answer again isn't to change the rules. it is to change the nominee. and we democrats are not going to oppose every republican nominee. of course we realize the nominee select the best way would not completely agree with our viewsd the judge gorsuch is so far out vote to earn both to pass the senate. even justice roberts and alito, two very conservative judgeste aren't a bunch of democratic vote in each got more than 60 in his nomination, the other 72 votes in the closure process. so mr

chief justice and fellow justices, it's a privilege to have you here to join in this historic moment on this very beautiful spring day in the rose garden. spring is really the perfect backdrop for this joyful gathering of friends because together we are in a process of reviewing and renewing and also rebuilding our country. a new optimism is sweeping across our land and a new faith in america is filling our hearts and lifting our sights. i would also like to recognize senator corey -- where's corey? corey gardner. mike leigh. where's mike? he's around here some place. thank you. and mike krapel. hi, mike. thank you very much and for all your work. thank you. [ applause ] and although he could not be here today i especially want to express our gratitude to senator mitch mcconnell for all that he did to make this achievement possible. so thank you, mitch. [ applause ] i would also like to give my appreciation to chairman grassley for conducting such a fair and professional confirmation. senator grassley. where is senator grassley? thank you. thank you. thank you, senator. finally, a pr

second only to justice thomas and more conservative than the late justice scalia and "the washington post" actually said to be the most conservative justice of the bench even more than the conservative justice thomas in fact, to never let special interest groups be the gatekeeper. we have never said to any special interest groups give us a list or choose from a list and in the past presidents have done just what they're suggesting for selecting the supreme court justice. president bill clinton saw the republican judiciary chairman orrin hatch beat nominating justice ginsberg empire then to take the vice of republican senators whenco he picked garland a consensus mainstream nominee. try president trump on either hand only sophy advice and consent of special interest groups when making supreme court ex so to outsource entireo selection process. they will lead admit them themselves. the load and behold to produce a nominee with 60 votes and justice beyer 87. so mr. president we're offering president trump and our friends on the other side a way for word from the battue break the senate

justice scalia. the list that was submitted to him and which judge gorsuch was part of was proposed by the heritage foundation and the federalist society. that's not a good way to start a process of bringing in a consensus nominee to the supreme court of the united states. to i -- to my knowledge, there was no consultation with any democrats prior to any nomination being made. the reason why consultation with all members of the senate are important is that if you engage in real understanding as to what the senate, which we represent the entire country, is looking for in a supreme court justice, you have a much better chance of ending up hueneme who is going to enjoy broader support, bipartisan support, real bipartisan support in the united states senate, and then the 60-vote threshold does not become a hurdle. there's a reason why we have the rules we do in the senate. and the 60-vote concept on a controversial nominee is so we don't end up with an extreme candidate that would end up being on the sup

in just a moment, justice gorsuch will be sworn in by justice kennedy. a great man of outstanding accomplishment throughout his nearly 30 years on the supreme court, justice kennedy has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service. we owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. and i am honored that he is with us today. [applause] this is a very, very special moment. because many years ago a young neil gorsuch started his legal career as a law clerk to justice kennedy. you will remember that, right? >> yes. >> it is a fitting testament to justice kennedy's impact that upon giving the oath to justice gorsuch, he will become the first ever supreme court justice to serve with one of his former law clerks. that is sort of a big deal, isn't it? i sort of like that. that's a sort of good. it has never happened before. that is pretty good. it also shows that you have a lot of respect for this man. it is very good. we are thrilled to share this historic moment with justice kennedy, with all of you here today, and with all americans watching us at home.

justice ginsburg 96-3. justice breyer 87-9. chief justice roberts, 78-22.justice alito 58ce reporter: 42. justice sotomayor, 58-31. justice keg and 53-37. incidentally, just as clear who judge gorsuch would read replacing passed in the senate 98-to zero. note that two of the current numbers of the supreme court were confirmed by fewer than 60-vote. not online, there has never been a 60-vote requirement in the u.s. senate are a partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee during the president's first term.nfirma never. here's another fact equally as valid into judge gorsuch confirmation.ny more than any other president -- more than any other presidential election in recent memory, the one last year was clearly about the united states supreme court. republicans in the senate and kennedy are now president of trump told the american people there's american people there is a seat on the u.s. supreme court. this is an important issue. let the people decide. and they did. polls showed millions of americans added that the main for president campaign against hilla

soda opens with justice scalia aria the justices how could they possibly spout this?and know absolutely nothing about this? so that i tell him he is seeking solutions to problems that don't have easy answers but the great thing about our constitution is that it can evolve. so that sets it up in the plot is roughly based justice scalia goes through certain number of trials and then is punished for excessive defending. [laughter] and then i entered. [laughter] to help him get through the trials and then i was asked he is your enemy. i said no. he is my friend. that is really the theme of the opera house to people who think differently about important things can genuinely like each other and enjoy their company one of the things justice scalia would like every now and then would read my opinion he would call to correct my grammatical errors never on paper but always with a telephone call. typical of him was that we disagreed sharply in the military institute case if they could offer those great advantages that was closed to women. we went back and forth many times like t

chief justice and fellow justices, it's a privilege to have you here to join in this historic moment on this very beautiful spring day in the rose garden. spring is really the perfect backdrop for this joyful gathering of friends because together we are in a process of reviewing and renewing and also rebuilding our country. a new optimism is sweeping across our land. and a new faith in america is filling our hoerearts and lifti our sights. i'd also like to recognize senator cory gardner, mike lee, and mike crepel. thank you very much and for allall your work. although he could not be here today, i want to express our gratitude to senator mitch mcconnell for all that he did to make this achievement possible. so thank you, mitch. i'd also like to give give my appreciation to chairman grassley for conducting such a fair and professional confirmation. senator grassley. where is senator grassley? thank you. thank you. thank you, senator. finally, a profound thank you to louise gorsuch and to all of the gorsuch family. thank you. and louise, i've heard it firsthand, i know what a total ins

the american constitution ociety touted justice kagan as a justice -- "a justice for every american." where did their money come from? i don't know and i suppose a lot of people think that i shouldn't say i don't care but this is america where people can spend their money where they want to spend it and they can use their money for political speech or any advocacy that they want. and of course as we see advocacy groups on the left are engaged on this nomination as well. liberal billionaires like tom steyer, george soros fund their own dark money organizations like nextgen climate, a group that describes judge gorsuch as "an extreme candidate, wrong for the supreme court under any circumstances." everyone in this room knows that liberal and progressive groups have been pressuring the minority leader to find a reason, any reason, to filibuster the nominee. naral has run ads to pressure members to filibuster. even had some groups called progressive change campaign committee target a senior and extremely well-respected democrat over his, quote-unquote" squishy comments suggesting he might

justice kagan: mr. feldman, you said there are two kinds of entrants, one is a trespasser entrant and one is a nontrespasser entrant. guest entrant, let's call the person. right? >> right. justice kagan: when a trespasser enters your home, different sets of things foreseeably happen. >> correct. justice kagan than when a guest : enters your home. >> correct. >> so it's not just an entry. the question is who is entering. a trespasser or a guest? >> correct. and that is the problem with this case, is that when the officers pulled back the blanket, there was no indication and no reason for them to know that the mendez knew they were police officers. so, in the trespasser example, if the homeowner has a second amendment right, obviously she does -- to point that weapon the trespasser, and the trespasser then shoots the homeowner, that's murder. justice breyer: ordinary tort law -- pick up on this for a second. and don't answer if it's a red herring. maybe this isn't about cause -- causation, maybe it's a re

justice scalia's widow. the whole party will move down the street to the white house and there that will be the judicial oath. that's a different oath given really just to justices and judges. and neil gorsuch ask that justice kennedy deliver that oath and the reason is why is gorsuch served as a clerk for kennedy. that is a little bit of precedent, poppy. this is the first time that we have a former clerk who will sit on the bench with the justice who he worked for. so, it's symbolic and, poppy, new precedent here at the court. >> it's fascinating. now, they have a full bench, which means no more 4-4 ties like they were facing before. ariana, thank you so much. >>> let's talk about all of this with cnn supreme court legal analyst and former federal prosecutor and here on set with me,er the one and only jeffrey toobin. and it is now this morning and the oath, the nine. >> 14 months of eight justices. you know, it's really important when you think about how long these justices serve for. neil gorsuch is young

justice brennan said we current justices read the constitution in the only way that we can. as 20th century americans. we look to the history of the time of framing and to the intervening history of interpretation. but the ultimate question must be what do the words of the text mean in our time? for the genius of the constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs. he further went on to say time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes. therefore, a principle to be vital must be capable of application and the mischief which gave it birth. he says this is true of constitutions. they are not ephemeral they are designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it. he says interpretation must account for the transformative purpose of the text. the transformative purpose of the text. our constitution was not to preserve a preexisting society but to make a new one, to put in place new pr

chief justice and fellow justices, it is a privilege to have you here to join in this historic momenton this beautiful spring day in the rose garden. really the perfect backdrop for this joyful gathering of friends because together, we are written a process of reviewing and renewing and also rebuilding our country. a new optimism is sweeping across our land. and a new faith in america is filling our hearts. and lifting our sites. recognizeso like to senator cory gardner, mike lee -- where is he? he was around here someplace. and mike crapo. good. thank you for all your work. thank you. [applause] >> although he could not be here today, i do want to express gratitude to senator mitch mcconnell for all that he did to make this achievement possible. thank you. [applause] >> i would also like to give my appreciation to chairman grassley for conducting such a fair and professional confirmation. senator grassley. where is senator grassley? thank you. thank you, senator. finally, a profound thank you to louise gorsuch and to all of the gorsuch family. thank you. [applause] louise gorsuch, i

the american constitution society outed justice kagan as a justice quote, a justice for every american. where to their money come from? i don't know and i suppose a lot of people think that i should say i don't care but this is america. where people can spend their money where they want to spend it and they can use their money for political speech or any advocacy that they want. >> and of course, as we see, advocacy groups on the left are engaged. >> we are going to leave this here, the committee spent more than 20 hours of testimony from judge gorsuch, approving the nominee in committee along a partyline vote on the website, just to cite

chief justice roberts said he agreed. and thomas injustice toledo said he agreed that judge gorsuch would not. this is been used repeatedly to basically create a body of constitutional precedent that says the relationships of people should be freed from intrusion of the ever met. you cannot come alliance because of theirg relationship. fare not willing to connect to that principle is someone who has not earned my voteen and i yield the floor thanks to my friend from texas. >> madam president members of the senate are talking about the importance to vote o we are casting tomorrow andd friday to result in the confirmation of judge course it just the next associate justice to the united states supreme court. having served on the judiciary committee committed as ben my honor to purchase pay in the confirmation hearings and what i have been stretched by is those that would cast the party-line votes and how much they are struggling even to come up with an honest argument in spite the obvious enteron this that for what the judge

again -- justice kagan or justice alito what about judge garland? o. because this senate decided for almost an entire year we have not seen the senate did not take action since the civil war. at would prefer to take the challenge and focus on the nominee himself. over the consideration i have decided not to vote in favor of a nominee. critical cases to including rights of children with disabilities campaign finance and preserving health and safety that has led me millikan not support the nomination i did not agree with every opinion but what i saw a time and time again was a judge that had the contract between the judicial approach to write narrow consensus decisions and more towards the ideological position and a law of those were key in senator been mentioned the disability case the especially after you raise the supreme court the day we had for george -- judge gorsuch to reject the standard that judge gorsuch had come up with a nephew years back on the tenth circuit idea is important with kids with disabilities but 24,000 kids rely on this live - -

one justice matters. the list of recent 5-4 decisions coming out of the supreme court shows that one judge's vote can forever alter history. just remember that bush versus gore, citizens united, district of columbia versus heller, the affordable care act were all decided by 5-4 votes. i will, therefore, oppose judge gorsuch's nomination to the supreme court and support the filibuster, and i urge my colleagues to do so as well. if judge gorsuch cannot muster 60 votes, the problem is not with the process, it is with the nominee. if judge gorsuch cannot get to the 60 votes historically required for confirmation to the nation's highest court, i urge president trump to withdraw his nomination and consult with a wide range of senators, legal scholars and others that past presidents have sought out before making a supreme court nomination and put before us someone in the mold of merrick garland who can enjoy bipartisan support and be within the broad mainstream of american juris prudential history. otherwise, th

. >> social justice -- >> social justice -- >> social justice.ohn: social justice, something leftists talk about. >> social justice is code for good things no one needs to argue for, and no one dare be against. >> save the whales. >> gays in the military now! >> free nelson mandela. >> they freed him already. john: what's the enemy of social justice? >> capitalism is really what is the oppressive force. john: so what must people do? >> spread those resources. john: when that's tried, people have to wait in endless lines for their social justice. >> [inaudible] john: social justice -- >> if we don't get it -- john: that's our show tonight. ♪ ♪ >> and now, john stossel. john: are you for social justice? i want to say i am because if i'm not, wouldn't that mean i'm for social injustice? that sounds terrible. it's why social justice is such a powerful slogan. it usually means, well, i'm not clear exactly what it means. it can mean so many things. jonah goldberg explains that in this video for prager university. >> ask ten lib calls to tell you -- lib

justice byron was a justice focused on eliminate case in front of i here is a quote, time and again justice white avoided brought theoretical basis for a decision when a narrow-backed specific rationale would suffice. there is a reason we have judges to apply the law to the facts of a case. it is because answers aren't always as clear as we would like them to be. and sometimes there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the law. the cases that get to the supreme court are not the ones where everyone agreed at the lower-court level. her they're the really hard cases. it is that discretion in making those decision-makers it so critical that justices interpret the law evenly, without fear or favor and with the humility to recognize the gravity of the office, to respect the role of the judiciary, and to understand the impact of their decisions on people's lives. as i look back at the judge's record and his answers in the hearing, i'm again remanded that it wasn't a law professor or a federal jurist who was helped by a court's reliance on chevron in interpreting a labor department rule.

justice kennedy, 97-0 ; justice thomas 52-48 ; justice ginsberg 94-3, justice breyer 87-9 ; chief justice -- justice alito 5 #-42, justice sotomayor 58 to 21, justice kagan, 63 to 27. note that two of the current members of the supreme court were confirmed by fewer than 60 votes. bottom line, there has never been a 60-vote requirement in the united states senate or a partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee during a president's first term. never. and here's another fact equally as relevant to judge gorsuch's confirmation. more than any other president -- more than any other presidential election in recent memory, the one last year was clearly about the united states supreme court. republicans in the senate and candidate and now president trump told the american people there's an open seat on the u.s. supreme court. this is an important issue. let the people decide. and they did. polls show that millions of americans ended up voting for president trump and against hillary clinton based at least in part on which candidate they believed should nominate our next supreme court justice an

second only to justice thomas. more conservative than the late justice scalia. the washington post actually said to be the most conservative justice on the bench based on his record. even more conservative than the very conservative justice thomas. in fact, we democrats have never let special interest group speed gatekeeper. we have said to special interest group, we have never said to a special interest group is president trumped it, give us a list, will choose from that li list, that is what republicans did. we have now the bird on it. in the past presidents have done just that we are suggesting for supreme court justices. they saw took the vice of or hatch in nominating justices ginsburg and breyer president obama took the advice that republican senators when he picked merrick garland, a consensus a mainstream nominee.d president trump on the other hand, ignored the senate and only sought the advice and consent of right winged special interest groups when making supreme court pics. he was running, he had to sharp as a part of the hard right so a he said, i am

because what it means to justice -- judge gorsuch, soon to be justice gorsuch is this. to be a good and faithful judge. it seems to me that the separation of legislative and judicial powers isn't just a formality dictated by the constitution. neither is it just about ensuring that two institutions with basically identical functions are balanced one against the other. to the founders the legislative and judicial powers were disfint by nature -- distint by nature and their separation is one of the most important liberty devices of constitutional design, an independent right ever the people essential to the preservation of all other rights, later enumerated in the constitution and its amendments. now consider if we allowed the judge to act like a legislator unconstrained by the bicameralism and presentment hurd hims of article one, the judge would need only his own vote or those of just a few colleagues to revise the law willy-nilly in accordance with his preferences and the task of legislating would become a relatively simple thing. notice how hard it would be to revise t

we've had great democrat justices, we've had great republican justices . and no one knows how great the nominee is going to be until the nominee serves on the court and it does the job that is so difficult to do as a member of the united states supreme court. neil gorsuch, i have every confidence will be one of the all-time great justices for the court.he deserves confirmation , he deserves overwhelming confirmation. if we weren't in such a disputed to mood around here , if we didn't have so much problems with each other, he would be an easy person to support. is but i hope we can put our politics aside and look at the man, look at his experience , look at his genius , look at his decency, look at the fact that he graduated with the scholars in 99 percent of the cases that came before the court of appeals and most of those were democrats. look at these things and say my gosh, what are we about here? is this just become a politicized exercise every time we have a nomination ? one way or the other? i have to admit it looked as though hillary clinton was goin

department of justice by president bush. we all and our industry know you are my larry, for the thompson memo. it emphasized broader prosecutors the -- federal prosecutors waving attorney-client privilege, and turning over materials for internal investigations. larry left the doj and went into the private sector to oversee another part of compliance at pepsico were he was general counsel and secretary until his retirement in 2018. -- in 2014. notably, the compliance function reported to larry. until his retirement part that i got from his official bio, i would argue larry has not retired yet. he is teaching at a university and is counsel to an attorney law firm. we were honored that he agreed to serve as the new chairman of our board in january of this year. it is a great pleasure to have him help lead this organization. with that, i would like to welcome larry to the stage so he can introduce our afternoon keynote. larry. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you for that kind introduction. i would like to say a few things, p

equal justice. my colleagues asked him again and again about his views on public finance laws and he had many opportunities but never told us what the proper legal standard for evaluating campaign-finance laws would be if he wasn't going to use the one that was used. a majority of the current justices support public disclosure of contributions and yet the judge gave us no real sense of his views. during our exchange on campaign-finance, i was reminded of the words of justice scalia and his support for greater disclosure. he said this, requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts, fosters civi cic courage. without democracy is doomed. i do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the supreme court campaigns anonymously and even exercise the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny. this does not resemble the home of the brave. third example, chevron. the most striking example of the decision made by the judge not to decide a case narrowly base

than justice thomas or justice scalia. right-wing advocacy groups cheered his nomination and have spent over $10 million to support his nomination. they spent this money because they have high confidence that he will rule in their favor on so many of the tough cases that will come before the supreme court. these groups, including the heritage foundation and the federalist society, selected judge gorsuch because he meets their litmus test for how they think a justice should rule. and they selected him because they understood judge gorsuch clearly met the litmus test the president outlined during his campaign. to paraphrase, donald trump wanted a judge who would prioritize the religious freedom of a corporation over the rights of its employees, uphold an expansive view of the second amendment making it much tougher to enact sensible gun legislation to protect our communities, and who would overturn roe v. wade as donald trump put it automatically. judge gorsuch's credentials are just a starting point. for the people who need

the department of justice before serving as u.s. circuit court of appeals for the tenth circuit. gorsuch has for all of these achievements judge gorsuch has achieved the highest possible reading -- reading the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominations has established a dozen exceptional moneyy and his appearance before the senate judiciary committee was extraordinaryad with the three rounds of questioning each member had the opportunity to quiz over one hour each on every aspect of constitutional law to insert 1,200 questions from the panel had flawless mastery over his field and his nomination was exemplarypar. with his transparency with the response to the judiciary request he provided over 70 pages ofl written answers of his personal record in 75,000, pages of documents includingng speeches in case priests and opinions which makes you wonder why he wanted the job with the white house archives the darkness of justice produce 100,000 pages are 180,000 occasions related to his time at the doj the department of justice provid

bushr nominated john roberts as chief justice.. there was no filibuster attempt against that nomination. president bill clinton nominated ruth bader ginsburg and david prior to the supreme court. president george h.w. bush nominated justice souter and clarence thomas to the supreme court. either just a face to filibustes even though 48th in the voted against the thomas nomination. they did require a cloture vote when a group of democrat senators attended to block a vote on the confirmation of justice alito's nomination. es 72 and back to invoke cloture,e, or preserving the bipartisan u.s. of filibusters against supreme court nominee is. among those who reject bid the alito filibuster in 2006 with the two democrat senators from my state, senator robert c. byrd and senator jay rockefeller. 72 senators voted to invoketing cloture on justice alito's nomination, but only 58 ended up voting for the final confirmation. the senate has a very clear history of rejecting the use of the filibuster proof court nominations. there's no justificat

department of justice by president bush. we all, in the industry, or you for the thompson memo which emphasized for federal prosecutors the importance of of a waiting attorney-client privilege. larry left the doj and went into the private sector to see yet another facet of compliance, executiveas pepsico's vice president for general affairs, general counsel and secretary until his retirement in 2014. notably the compliance function reported to him. wouldhis retirement, i argue that larry has not retired yet. as i mentioned he is teaching at a university. he is also counsel to the pinch, law firm, greatly. he agreed to serve as the new chairman of the board in january. it is a great pleasure for us to have him. with that, i would like to welcome larry to the stage. larry. [applause] he can excuse our afternoon keynote. larry. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you pat for the kind introduction. larry: i am sorry i could not be with you this morning. last night i had an incident. george washington hospital emergency rooms and

n we voted on cloture when justice alito was nominated in 2006. we did the same in 1968, 1971,da and 1986. in 1991, clarence thomas was confirmed on a 52-48 about. and in 2006, samuel alito was confirmed on a 58-42 vote. in fact, when president obama was in the white house, republicans did not filibuster nominee. in fact, this body confirmed sonia sotomayor in 2009 by a vote of 68-31.y confirmed justice kagan by a roll call vote of 63-37 in 2010. we did not filibuster. let me remind folks. cloture is in place to stop debate, not to stop a vote. cloture was put in place to speed the senate up, to end debate and move to a vote, not to stop a vote. it was never intended to be a stall tactic or something to obstruct this body. this bears repeating. cloture was put in place to speed up the process, to prevens obstruction. this chamber has never had a partisan filibuster to a supreme court nominee. let me say that again. this chamber has never had a partisan filibuster to a supreme court nominee. and so here we are today with no other option but to invo

to pull justice kennedy? guest: maybe. lot of what happens in oral arguments. justices will ask a question of the lawyer, but really they are ue the to sort of piq interest of justice kennedy or anyone else they think they can get over to their side. we will see, but that is certainly a possibility. host: sam baker, joining us from national journal, to talk about matters of the supreme court, it especially in the case of religious liberty being heard today. loretta? caller: good morning. i have a solution for them. it is likely king who said you have this baby into women if they want it, the state to find the playground, then they give up their tax exemption. it is a simple solution. i do not believe that the state should be giving taxpayers' money to any religious institution, period. thank you. guest: an session ben simpler solution would that because missouri has changed its policies, the court does not even need to hear this dispute, and wait for another day to address those questions. host: ohio on the r