they don't want him to put anybody at the nlrb because the nlrb don't have a quorum. they can't function. what does that mean? we lose our government agency that supposed to decide disputes between employers and employees. you just effectively shut that down. they didn't want anybody at the cfpb because then they couldn't issue rules. issue rules against payday lenders or mortgage servicers who were breaking the law. it's a shut down approach. now, they've gone after president obama for this from the beginning. whether they would continue that or not, obviously, i don't have any way of knowing. i do know this, they are paying the price for their own extremism. it has now taken them by the throat. when they stand up in the senate and say, oh, my gosh, what's going to happen to us? we now may have a presidential nominee who is so extreme that he will pull us over the edge electorally and cause us a disaster in november. the answer is, guys, this is what you did to yourselves. if you really want to stop it, stop it right now. stand up and do your job. >> when you see tha

when they say with this president, they don't want him to put anybody at the nlrb because if the nlrbum, they can't function and what does that mean? we lose our government agency that supposed to decide disputes between employers and employees. you just effectively shut that down. they didn't want anybody at the cfpb because then they couldn't issue rules. issue rules against payday lenders or against mortgage servicers who were breaking the law. it's a shutdown approach. now, they've gone after president obama for this from the beginning. whether they would continue that or not, obviously, i don't have any way of knowing. but i do know this, they are paying the price for their own extremism. it has now taken them by the throat. and so when they stand up in the senate and say, oh, my gosh, what's going to happen to us, we now may have a presidential nominee who is so extreme that he will pull us over the edge electorally and cause us a disaster in november. the answer is, guys, this is what you did to yourselves. and if you really want to stop it, stop it right now. stand up and do y

so they could shut down the nlrb because they wouldn't have a quorum. tried to name him from naming anyone from the environmental secretary agency, the consumer financial protection bureau. why? because they were trying to hold those as vacant so they could shut down parts of government. and when you've given into your extremists like that, when the whole animating of energy of the united states senate is in effect to try to deny the legitimacy of the president who was democrat i can clee elected. the legitimacy of what's called for in the constitution means they really have just gone the extremist route and, let's face it, trump is the natural consequence of that. so i think all these pieces are weaving together and they've all hit this -- this high point now or low point with trump as the presidential nominee and senate republicans having picked this position that says we're not going to even hold hearings and a vote on a vacancy in the united states supreme court basically for a year. this is really pretty stunning. >> and when you put the two togeth

tried to block him from filling any vacancy on the nlrb. why?they could shut down the nlrb because thaw wouldn't have a quorum. tried to keep him from naming anyone to the environmental protection agency as secretary of labor. to the consumer financial protection bureau. why? because they were trying to hold those as vacant so they could shut down parts of government. and when you've given into your extremists like that, when the whole animating of energy, of the united states senate, is in effect to try to deny the legitimacy of the president who was democratically elected, the legitimacy of what's called for in the constitution means they really have just gone the extremist route, and let's face it, trump is the natural consequence of that. so i think all these pieces are weaving together and they've all hit this high point now or low point with trump as the presidential nominee and senate republicans having picked this position that says, we're not going to even hold hearings and a vote on a vacancy in the united states supreme court basicall

relations act, and then they have the agricultural labor relations board, kind of like the nlra and the nlrb and i think it's a long time coming to get something. i mean, farmworkers sometimes--i remember when i was a farmworker as a little boy, you know, i would get there early in the morning before sunrise and leave at sunset, and that was longer than 10 hours and it was longer than 8 hours. sometimes it went 14-16 hours and there wasn't an enforcement back then. and it's really weak now to enforce too, but i think helping getting that started is the beginning, because that's how it started when we got the 8-hour guarantee and the 40-hour guarantee. it started slowly but surely. so, i applaud the effort. i wish it would be 8, but we'll take poco, poquito. a little at a time. damian: and you know, we have a progressive pope right now at the vatican, and there's been a long effort to canonize cesar chavez. we all know that he--well, tell us how religious he was, because everywhere--every march that you saw, [speaking in foreign language] was at the forefront of every march. but there is this

those: at least one of decisions was the nlrb, the national labor relations board. panel that back to the nlrb and that decision. how much of a fight do you think this will be? to put in aision becauset in tennessee, it is a right to work state, was a labor violation. that was also turned back by the d.c. court of appeals and affirmed by the supreme court. now the d.c. court of appeals has changed in tone, so the interesting point is where justice garland was in that decision. that is what i think republicans will start looking at. then they will make a decision about whether to hold hearings or meet with the nominee. they say they won't, but now there is a person, they will be looking at the record and trying to determine if it is something they would want to consider. vonnie: kay bailey hutchison is standing by in dallas. i also want to bring in david westin. you, in fact, clerked with judge garland. what do you know about merrick garland? him hereclerked with in new york. we work closely together in other areas. good to see you, kay. beyond the ideology, we have

things like i remember one time we had the fcc that wanted to the take one position, you know, and the nlrb wanted to take the other one, and it was up to me to figure out which position was going to be the policy of the united states. so, you know, to that extent i think you can see the power of the solicitor general particularly if the president faces, say, a congress that he doesn't get along with, right? maybe rather than going through congress and trying to pass legislation, you use your solicitor general to go before the court and enact policy change one way or the other there. so, you know, those are the two responsibilities, i think, is the representation and then the coordination. and that really is an important prerogative for the s.g.. >> is the s.g. independent of the attorney general? >> guest: ah, that's a good question. i'm going to say, by and large, the the s.g. is independent of the attorney general. now, technically speaking the attorney general is the s.g.'s boss, right? and so in large part, this can does depend on the personality of the attorney general and the preside

they wanted to get rid of the nlrb.our guiding principle should be responding to the needs of hard working americans. if our government institutions have outgrown certain norms and tradition wes should evolve to meet the needs of the modern era, inspire a new generation of americans to get involved in public service. we can only affect the best people by showing we are committed to in the new ideas and real results with real people. most of all, we should reuss the urge to weather down foreign policy solutions. we should resist the urge to move to the right. a few months ago i met with the new governor of louisiana. i asked him, the governor elect, a few questions. one, i asked him about how he survived down there. he said when people ask me if i supported obamacare, i just said, yes. he added if you're a progressive and you dither over thunder principles -- then -- this is a direct quote -- people won't think you're a liberal. they thick you're a liar. so let's be proud of who we are. that's what this says to me. let's

but they keep social security, nlrb, so, they almost did him a favor. shesol: and there was talk that they had done him a favor on the nra. but something i should have pointed out earlier, the question of why roosevelt would not wait. we have talked many times about how old the justices were and you raised this matter of the incredible succession of appointments that roosevelt got, why did he not just wait? particularly if some of these decisions he did not necessarily object to in a political sense, like the nra decision. i think that is important to put yourself back in the moment, which is something i try to do in the book. there was a very real sense in the country, and roosevelt shared it, that if they cannot get some of these things through the court, not simply the programs, but the very notion of obligation to provide security if you could , not get minimum wage through getcourt, if you could not maximum hours, if you cannot improve working conditions, if you cannot recognize labor rights the right of collective , bargaining, the civil rights to

in january of 2013, the president attempted to recess-appoint nominees to the nlrb in direct violation of the senate's will. the supreme court later intervened and struck down those appointments. as well, my colleagues across the aisle have repeat you hadly shown a willingness to aid this snreation making unprecedented power grabs including employing the nuclear option for judicial nominees. the american people were outraged at these events, as was i. so while i acknowledge the president's position on insisting the senate consider a nominee, it is vital that the people get their say in this lifetime appointment. it's the role of the senate to rise above current political theater. it is about upholding the principle and not about the individual. the senate should simply not consider a nominee at this time, and let the people have their say. mr. president, i should also point out that my position and the position of many of my colleagues is not a novel idea. for instance, it was then-senator obama who filibustered justice alito's nomination in 2006. it was then of this senator biden who

they wanted to get the nlrb. our guiding principles should be responding to the needs of hard-working americans ffment our government institutions have outgrown certain norms we should meet the needs of the modern air averha and get involved with public service. and only the best people we are committed and living real results for real people. most of all, we should resist the urge to water down or run away from our policy solutions. resist the urge to move to the right. a few months ago i met with the .ew governor of louisiana a fewd the governor-elect questions. i asked him how he survived down there. he said if i supported obamacare, i just said yes. if you are progressive and get over your principles, then and this is a direct quote, people just don't think you are a liberal, they think you are a liar. so let's be proud of who we are. and let's not be shy. democratic policies for the last seven years created 14 million jobs and dropped unemployment to 5% and 20 million americans get health care. today there a

nlrb case. in logan valley, it upheld something. in lloyd corporation, it distinguished it, but not overruled it. hudgens -- justice breyer: well, i -- mr. carvin: this doesn't this -- justice breyer: i'll accept that. let me accept that what you can do is you can go through and you're good at it, and so is the other side. you know, you go through the cases and you draw the line here, there, and the other place. and i'm trying to abstract from that in a very basic way for this reason. i think plessy v. ferguson was a case that certainly should have been overruled. it certainly should have been overruled because it was basic, because it was a right to treat people equally, and there were millions of people who were not. now, you see the level of abstraction i'm working at? now, if i put that same level of abstraction here, i see the following -- you will go out this door, and you will buy hundreds of things, if not thousands, where money will go from your pocket into the hands of people, including many government people, who will spe

april 12th, 1937, which as i explained in my book is the day the supreme court decided seminal case of nlrbsus jones steel. this is when congress started shifting toward a commerce clause which is essentially open-ended. an interpretation of the commerce clause fully embraced and evolved within five years after that in another case called liquor v. fillborn. regulating channels and instrumentalities in interstate commerce and objects moving in interstate commercial transactions. congress may also regulate any and every activity that when measured in the aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. it is fair to say that under this standard virtually every aspect of human existence, virtually every human activity may be regulated properly at the federal level. so how does this relate to the horizontal separation of powers? well, it does precisely because when we load too many things onto the federal government, we make it virtually impossible that one legislative body, and for that matter one executive, but especially one legislative body can effectively manage and oversee all