mad max: fury road was nominated, deserved to be nominated, ten nominations, awesome flick. and then a movie called ex machina, smaller independent film, which really, really did well at the box office for its small budget. alicia vikander is amazing in that film. but your two picks are the ones that needed to be nominated for sure. yeah, my pick, it didn't make the list, but in my mind it is on the list. i'm talking about straight outta compton. yeah. high five on that. i loved that movie. it was so well done. it was a historical movie. and whether you are familiar with nwa or not, you could appreciate that film. it transcended hip hop. it wasn't just a hip hop film. jason mitchell was phenomenal in that movie. he played eazy-e. he was amazing. it started a conversation, most importantly, in my eyes. my pick was creed, and come on. loved that movie. first of all, michael b. jordan. yes, girl. sweetheart. okay. you love michael b. jordan. ter i walked out, i started llowing him on twitter. i was all about michael b. jordan. okay, but it was a powerful film. and to me, it rev

once once i made a nomination. all the members of the senate will make a decision about how they fulfill the constitutional responsibilities. i recognize the politics are for them because the easy thing to do is to given to the most extreme voices within our party and stand pat and do nothing. that is not our job. ourour job is to fulfill our constitutional duties. and so i hope and expectation is that once there is no actual nominee this is no longer abstraction to my go to five those on the judiciary committee recognize the show the courtesy of meeting. men and free to vote would have a this person is qualified or not. well within the mainstream like a jurist. >> it will be very difficult to explain how the senate should stand in the way simply for political reasons. see what happens. i don't expect meant for, say that is the case today. but let's see how the public response to the nominee. the one thing that i think is important to dispel as any notion that somehow this is some well-established tradition are som

because a person is nominated by president obama. remember, republican leaders said many years ago the number one goal we had was to make sure president obama was not reelected. it failed miserably. he won by nearly 5 million votes. torything has been done , filibuster, anything that can be done to focus attention on president obama. but senator grassley has to a narrowpretense partisan mission of gridlock. so partisan that the senior senator of iowa won't respond to a personal invitation to invite him to the white house to discuss the vacancy. think about that. he doesn't even respond to the president. of thesad day from one proudest committees in the united states senate. the strength of the committee chairman in the united states senate have been legendary. majority, minority leader. it was off-balance. abdicating his responsibility. they have refused to do anything, even meet with the person that has nominated them. and the senate itself as an institution. they reported that the denial of committee hearings is unprecedented. abou

yee any additional nominations?y. no additional nominations necessarily the neemsz are closed any public comment on the vice chair of the authority seeing none, public comment is closed and i believe we can take this same house, same call? we'll take that without objection. commissioner mar is elected vice chair congratulations commissioner mar looked forward to work together colleagues we'll move to item number 6 item 6 award a 3 year cloult contract not to exceed one million dollars pulse for engineering services for the san francisco long-range transportation program and authorize the executive director to negotiate the contract terms an action items. >> colleagues questions or comments on item 6 seeing none, any public comment on item number 6 seeing none, public comment is closed and can we same house, same call? we'll take that without objection. that will be the order thank you item 78. >> approval the 2016 legislative program an action item. >> colleagues do we have - we don't need a presentation any questio

senators have been considered or nominated. i think it will be someone who's highly qualified, whoever the president nominates will be highly qualified. what i found interesting when i was at senator grassley's town hall meetings earlier this week, i asked hill directly whether -- because he's been hedging a little bit on whether he would move the nomination forward. had voted for in the past, would he at least promise a hearing on that person? or would he support that nominee? that could be any number of federal judges or past attorney general, there's plenty of folks that senator grassley has supported in the past. he wouldn't even commit to that. so that's the level of obstruction that we unfortunately are seeing from senator grassley and we hope that he doesn't obstruct this nomination and instead just does his job according to the constitution. >> ron: you know, senator grassley, one of the most popular senators in the history of iowa, someone who actually i believe has been one who called for a quick nomination in the pas

mad max: fury road was nominated, deserved to be nominated, ten nominations, awesome flick. and then a movie called ex machina, smaller independent film, which really, really did well at the box office for its small budget. alicia vikander is amazing in that film. but your two picks are the ones that needed to be nominated for sure. yeah, my pick, it didn't make the list, but in my mind it is on the list. i'm talking about straight outta compton. yeah. high five on that. i loved that movie. it was so well done. it was a historical movie. and whether you are familiar with nwa or not, you could appreciate that film. it transcended hip hop. it wasn't just a hip hop film. jason mitchell was phenomenal in that movie. he played eazy-e. he was amazing. it started a conversation, most importantly, in my eyes. my pick was creed, and come on. loved that movie. first of all, michael b. jordan. yes, girl. sweetheart. okay. you love michael b. jordan. ter i walked out, i started llowing him on twitter. i was all about michael b. jordan. okay, but it was a powerful film. and to me, it rev

wasyone of these justices nominated by a republican president. the simple fact is that the senate always differs to the president, as long as the president puts forward nominees who are qualified and reasonably moderate. and this reduces the risk of politicizing the judiciary and averages out over time. and has servedic the nation well. the desire to obstruct is understandable and the obstruction would set a disastrous precedent for the future. senate republicans should do their job and confirm the nominee. thought,a closing republicans announced they will not consider a nominee put forward by a duly elected president, no matter how qualified and moderate. this is unconscionable. if they carry on with this, it be -- mpatible and would if senate republicans follow courth, the supreme process will be lawless and the law of the jungle. it is a legacy they will surely come to regret. forhank you very much joining us. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here. it is a privilege to be able to talk to you about the constitution and it is a special hon

nominations. not only for the supreme court, but for the senate itself as an institution. historian'se senate office reported that the denial of committee hearings for a supreme court nominee is unprecedented. if that's unprecedented, how about the fact that you will not even meet with the person that has been nominated? if that's unprecedented, how a member ofct that the u.s. senate will not even go to the white house to talk to the president about filling a supreme court seat? the senior senator from iowa will be the first judiciary chairman ever to refuse to hold a hearing on a supreme court nominee. that's quite an achievement. but not one that should make you very proud. the sort of wanton obstruction is not with the american people want. it's not what the people of iowa want. last week, no fewer than six iowa newspapers issued scathing editorials calling on senator grassley to change course and give the nominated respect that year she deserves. for example, the globe-gazette wrote, we are es

he did say he would nominate. he call the republicans obstructionist and there was a question of whether or not he would nominate a moderate. he was not sure. >> listen to the nomination. as would you with any nomination the president would put forth and let's see what happens. >> was at the one being divisive? >> not at all. he said he wouldn't do a recess appointment. it is very interesting that you're saying you're open to it. in washington you hear people saying listen, this is balance of the court. we're not going to allow anybody to take that seat. all of a sudden president obama wants to interpret the constitution by the word of the constitution. >> the living breathing thing. >> i think it is important to point out that it is cut and dry. the president has an obligation to nominate someone and the president has an obligation to consider. it doesn't mean holding hearings or that they have any obligation to confirm whoever president obama puts up. and it is quite sim. mr. they can do what they want. the powe

the president will nominate. we go through a courtesy process where the nominee calls upon each senator and then there are hearings. there's a hearing and maybe there's several days of hearings and then there is a vote. i am calling for following the process mandated by the constitution and mandated by our traditions. the president nominates. let's meet with the nominee. let's hold the hearings, follow the process, and let's bring it to a vote. over the last 40 years, the average time it's taken for the senate to act is only 67 days from nomination to confirmation. so to say that we don't have enough time just doesn't work. we have ten months, 330 days left in this president's administration to do this job. now, some of my colleagues say there's precedence for this obstructionism. chairman grassley, the chair of the judiciary committee, cited four times in our history where a president did not nominate someone to fill a vacancy during an election year. well, those numbers are right, but guess what? the vacancy oc

the constitution and the duties to nominate and consider supreme court nominations remain filly in effect at all times. the constitution provides no exception, does not provide for its suspension depending on the time. the president and the senate each retain its respective involving supreme court three of which involved chief justice nominations. today is the anniversary of mar ri versus madison. perhaps the most important thing to remember about historical practices is they do not bind this institution. they do not rob you of your discretion or authority. they are not part of your oath. they are merely suggestions of how to use your power. they do not direct or mandate how you should use your power. what then should guy you? my own belief is that you should consider what kind of precedent you are establishing. the choice to shut down the senate nomination process or the supreme court appointment process as well for nearly a year is not ground in some grand principle. without any tradition to support such a decision we know what guides us. raw partisanship. the coursest possible basis fo

mad max: fury road was nominated, deserved to be nominated, ten nominations, awesome flick. and then a movie called ex machina, smaller independent film, which really, really did well at the box office for its small budget. alicia vikander is amazing in that film. but your two picks are the ones that needed to be nominated for sure. yeah, my pick, it didn't make the list, but in my mind it is on the list. i'm talking about straight outta compton. yeah. high five on that. i loved that movie. it was so well done. it was a historical movie. and whether you are familiar with nwa or not, you could appreciate that film. it transcended hip hop. it wasn't just a hip hop film. jason mitchell was phenomenal in that movie. he played eazy-e. he was amazing. it started a conversation, most importantly, in my eyes. my pick was creed, and come on. loved that movie. first of all, michael b. jordan. yes, girl. sweetheart. okay. you love michael b. jordan. ter i walked out, i started llowing him on twitter. i was all about michael b. jordan. okay, but it was a powerful film. and to me, it rev

he nominated robert bourke who couldn't pass senate and ginsburg was nominated and smoked marijuana.tell you how long ago that was. this isn't something we are accustomed to because it's happening in an election year. it's probably going to be a bigger issue than it ever has been. >> michael shore, al jazeera's political correspondent, thank you so much. we will have much more on this. supreme court antonin scalia, when we come back. stay with us. >>> recapping our breaking news out of texas, antonin scalia, the most senior justice has died. the associate justice was reportedly found dead of apparent natural causes at a luxury resort in west texas. the 79-year-old supreme court justice is nominated to the court in 1986 by president ronald reagan. he was one of the most consistent conservative voices on the high court. let's bring in our own senior washington correspondent, mike viqueira. mike, this is certainly stunning news. what do you think we are going to hear from the obama administration? >> well, false you will hear a note of grace. it has been confirmed by the u.s. marshal se

because a person is nominated by president obama. remember, republican leaders said many years ago the number one goal we had was to make sure president obama was not reelected. it failed miserably. he won by nearly 5 million votes. torything has been done , filibuster, anything that can be done to focus attention on president obama. but senator grassley has to a narrowpretense partisan mission of gridlock. so partisan that the senior senator of iowa won't respond to a personal invitation to invite him to the white house to discuss the vacancy. think about that. he doesn't even respond to the president. of thesad day from one proudest committees in the united states senate. the strength of the committee chairman in the united states senate have been legendary. majority, minority leader. it was off-balance. abdicating his responsibility. they have refused to do anything, even meet with the person that has nominated them. and the senate itself as an institution. they reported that the denial of committee hearings is unprecedented. abou

well, the president has a constitutional duty: i shall nominate. -- he muc shall nominate. so they are in a political pickle. but the constitution, the constitution doesn't care about the politics. from the constitution's point of view, the politics are just too darn bad. the constitution directs the president to make the appointment, and she do his job -- and he should do his job. the constitution gives the senate the job of advice and consent to the president's nominee. we should do our job, just as the constitution provides. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

authority to stop the nomination. but can they do that for another 341 days that he's president. >> if you know, there is one guarantee -- one way to guarantee that the judges appointed to the supreme court are judges that reflect our values, and that's to win elections. >> barack obama is president of the united states until january 20, 2017. that is a fact, my friends, whether the republicans like it or not. bill: there will be a battle for public opinion. how much does that matter now? what sort of sway do you finds in an election year? >> it's huge. senator barack obama held sam iewm alito to a 60-vote standard. he tried to filibuster to keep it from having a final vote. but public opinion is absolutely huge. it will in the context of a campaign. the president will put forward a nominee, i'm sure nominees are qualified. september 16, 2016, day 138 of republican obstruction of the real court nominee. there will be a lot of heat on republicans if they try to drag their feet on this all the way through january 2017.

for the office of the chair any nomination on the floor. >> commissioner yee i nominate the current chair continue to be the chair. >> thank you, commissioner. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you commission any other nominations? more than happy to take other nominations okay seeing none, nominations are closed oh, i'm sorry is there a second to commissioner yees if noting no further we'll open up for public comment on this item any public comment on this item >> seeing none, public comment is closed excuse me.? okay. mr. clerk call that same house, same call? we'll do that same house, same call? at this time we will take nominations for the office of vice chair. >> commissioner campos. >> i'd like to nominate commissioner avalos a nomination for commissioner avalos are there a second seconded by commissioner farrell colleagues by further nominations for this seat? okay so on the motion so we will close nominations and take take public comment seeing none, no numbers of the public public comment is closed. >> mr. clerk can we do this same house, same call? >> we can congratulations to s

it is his job to nominate somebody. he still will be technically the president of the united states for the next 11 months, which is a very, very long time. yes, we are in an election year, but we are barely into this election year of 2016. so you have republicans coming back, not just mitch mcconnell who you just mentioned, but the republican chairman of the senate judiciary committee saying that he believes it is standard practice to not deal with such issues in an election year. of course, there are lots of people who are saying, well, this is a special case, not just because we're the beginning of 2016, but because this isn't a retirement. this is something that was unexpected. this is basically an emergency, if you will. so this is going to be debated on and on. and i think we cannot lose sight of the fact that for both republicans and democrats in this incredibly hot political season, both have political benefits for making these cases. and for republicans in particular, not only do they not want the president to

yee any additional nominations? okay. no additional nominations necessarily the neemsz are closed any public comment on the vice chair of the authority seeing none, public comment is closed and i believe we can take this same house, same call? we'll take that without objection. commissioner mar is elected vice chair congratulations commissioner mar looked forward to work together colleagues we'll move to item number 6 item 6 award a 3 year cloult contract not to exceed one million dollars pulse for engineering services for the san francisco long-range transportation program and authorize the executive director to negotiate the contract terms an action items. >> colleagues questions or comments on item 6 seeing none, any public comment on item number 6 seeing none, public comment is closed and can we same house, same call? we'll take that without objection. that will be the order thank you item 78. >> approval the 2016 legislative program an action item. >> colleagues do we have - we don't need a presentation any que

republican nominations. so we don't have to go back to 1980 or 1982 to prove the current chairman's ineptness. look at the spike in judicial emergencies that occurred on chairman grassley's watch just in the past year. what is an emergency? it means there aren't enough judges -- too many cases for a judge to do the work. a vacant judgeship is automaticically declared an emergency as it should be. when republicans controlled the senate last year there were 12 emergencies nationwide. today, a year later, that number has almost tripled to 31. by nearly every metric, the judiciary committee under chairman grassley is failing dramatically, setting all records of failure in this great body. the committee is failing the people of iowa and the nation. to the senator from iowa, the senior senator from iowa, i stress, i plead don't continue down this path. reject this record-setting obstruction and simply just do your job as a power mr. cornyn: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presi

three nominations. crazy. >> isn't it? >> o'dell: i know that when you were little, your mom told you you were going to be taking her to the grammies when you grew up. did you bring your mom? we're both wearing sparkles tonight. i said, oh, my gosh, we're matching, so it works out. >> out. you're a jazz pianist. you had a monster hit. >> all the stuff i learned at conservatory, all the jazz stuff on the piano is all implemented in "see you again" so we're pushing music in a way. >> o'dell: where did you learn to bee bop. >> i have been doing it all my life. you know, it's the pre-grammy get-down. >> kevin: we'll keep it moving. charlie, good luck tonight, three nominations. >> o'dell: good luck. tell your mom we said hey. (cheers and applause) >> how you doing? great. >> moss: nominated. congratulations. what inspired you to do that? >> it was first place grammy nominated. it was crazy. my grandmom was one of the first female cops in world war two. she inspired me. >> .>> moss: anybody you excited to see on performance nig

for the office of the chair any nomination on the floor. >> commissioner yee i nominate the current chair continue to be the chair. >> thank you, commissioner. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you commission any other nominations? more than happy to take other nominations okay seeing none, nominations are closed oh, i'm sorry is there a second to commissioner yees if noting no further we'll open up for public comment on this item any public comment on this item >> seeing none, public comment is closed excuse me.? okay. mr. clerk call that same house, same call? we'll do that same house, same call? at this time we will take nominations for the office of vice chair. >> commissioner campos. >> i'd like to nominate commissioner avalos a nomination for commissioner avalos are there a second seconded by commissioner farrell colleagues by further nominations for this seat? okay so on the motion so we will close nominations and take take public comment seeing none, no numbers of the public public comment is closed. >> mr. clerk can we do this same house, same call? >> we can congratulations to s

and justice soto meyer's nomination. we'll find someone who is an outstanding legal mind. someone who cares deeply about our democracy and about rule of law. . there is not going to be any particular position on a particular issue that determines whether or not i nominate them. but i'm going to present someone who in indisputably is qualified for the seat. and any fair-minded person, even somebody who disagreed with my politics, would say would serve with honor and integrity on the court. now, part of the problem that we have here is that we've almost gotten accustomed to how obstructionists the senate has become when it comes to nominations. i mean, i've got 14 nominations that have been pending that were unanimously approved by the judiciary commit. so the republicans and democrats on the judiciary committee all agreed they were well-qualified for the position. and yet we can't get a vote on those individuals. so in some way this argument is just an extension of what we've seen in the senate generally not just on judic

to nominate whoever he wants to. senate has an schut right absolute right to firm or not confirm, the president are like justice scalia or like some of the other justices on there now. >> then you have got to fight. you have to the to fight for it. there is a lot riding on this. >> td" political panel is back. betsy weave this into the scenario we have. we have an open seat on the supreme court and nomination is coming from the white house. how does it play out in the races? >> i think all the republicans say what we have been hearing which is they can't confirm anyone. >> can't confirm or don't think there should be a hearing. >> perhaps not even that there should be a hearing because, look, this issue is so good for ted cruz, for donald trump, for marco rubio, for the further right, more conservative guys. because they can say who cares about precedent. we don't want obama putting another liberal on the supreme court. just let the clock run out. that's what they want. reviewed a really interesting poll with viewers

their nomination.ut their foot down now and say this is the time we should just punt this until the next president, until the next congress gets sworn in rather than having -- getting a nominee who will get a head of steam and be pushed by the white house. it is similar to what mark was saying that republicans believe this is a base rallying cry on their side as well. they could take to the senate races and say, look, you need to re-elect at a republican senate majority. that will be a firewall against a liberal justice. even if the top of their ticket tanks, they can say a senate majority will be instrumental in preserving a potentially conservative supreme court balance, prevent hillary clinton or bernie sanders from naming a liberal justice. that is going to be a huge argument in all of these states. >> thanks for being with us. we did invite i believe every member -- every republican member of the senate judiciary committee to come on and talk about this. none said they would do it. it shows you ho

and justice sotomayor's nomination. we're going to find somebody who is outstanding legal mind. somebody who cares deeply about our democracy and cares about rule of law. there is not going to be any particular position on a particular issue that determines whether or not i nominate them but i am going to present somebody who indisputably is qualified for the seat and any fair-minded person, even somebody who disagreed with my politics would say, would serve with honor and integrity on the court. now, part of the problem that we have here is we've almost gotten accustomed to how obstruction it the senate's become when it comes to nominations. i mean i've got 14 nominations that have been pending that were unanimously approved by the judiciary committee. so republicans and democrats, on the judiciary committee all agreed that they were well-qualified for the position. and yet we can't get a vote on those individuals. so in some way this is argument is just an extension of what we've seen in the senate generally. and not

, which the president shall appoint, shall nominate. senate republicans want to keep the supreme court vacant for more than one year. they want this vacancy to continue for more than one year. that will encompass two terms of the supreme court. this is demeaning to the institution of the supreme court, unfair to millions of americans who rely on that court to resolve important legal questions. in the coming days, the president will name a nominee, as the constitution requires; senate republicans should meet their responsibility under the constitution. senate republicans should do their job. give the president's nominee a fair hearing and a vote. is yesterday the republican members of the senate judiciary committee sent a letter to the majority leader and here's what they said -- quote -- "this committee will not hold hearings on any supreme court nominee until after our next president is sworn in on january 20, 2017." end of quote. why did they take this unusual position in defiance of the constitution? quote, "the presidential is well

he said he will be making a nomination before very long. he said the qualifications of that person are pretty clear. he said he will be nominating somebody who has a great legal mind and who cares about u.s. democracy. the president said that he's not looking for any particular position on any particular case. that is interesting, because both hillary clinton and bernie sanders, the democrats have said they would only nominate somebody to the supreme court who would overturn the citizens united campaign fundraising case. the president said when he makes his nomination, names somebody, he believe that is person will be indisputably qualified and everybody will see that that person will serve with integrity on the supreme court. a number of republicans suggested that the president should not be naming a supreme court justice in the final year of his term. the president at time spoke like a la professor challenging anybody to find anything in the constitution that suggests a president should not fulfill his duties. he said we've reached the si

we nominated, we voted 97-zero. the last year of reagan's term. >> we had nominations. that is the point here. >> here he is back in 2007. if any of these justices die while george bush is still in office, he will have a bit of a fit. here he is. >> you cannot confirm any bush nominee to the supreme court except in an extraordinary circumstance. >> a situation where are a particular party happens to be in office. following a certain script as opposed to saying we will do what is right for the country here. >> we are seeing so much angst by the american people. it does not work. this is a prime example where the republicans, out and said, mr. president, do not send as anybody. we're not going to work on it. i think that that is wrong. the constitution is clear. the president has a right to appoint. why would he not appoint? not only for his legacy, but for the court itself. >> i am encouraged to hear you say that. a very honest thing to say. what i am frustrated is by the lack of honesty. getting it all boiled down to politics. >> yes. especially an election year. i thin

he can nominate anybody he wants. it is up to the senate and its collective wisdom whether to grant consent. when we say that we made that if the senate did not play its unique role, liberty liberty itself would be weekend and destitute some strength in. as i said before the american people can and should have a voice in the selection of the next supreme court justice. in the waning days of this presidential election year after voters have already cast ballots in primaries, with republican candidates and democratic candidates and as caucuses occurring even today as i speak in nevada, i believe giving the american people the choice and who selects the next justice of the supreme court is very important. i think it elevates what's at stake in this next election this november. that means that this vacancy should not be filled at this time by this president. i yield the floor. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> mr. president, i came to the floor today because i am stunned i just learned that the republicans haven't announced to t

everybody else will stop the nomination, it's called delay, delay, delay. donald trump, that is exactly what the republican leader is doing, delay, delay, delay. 333 days is not enough to do the work that we ordinarily do and 67 days. it is disappointing to think that the senate is taking their impact by what donald trump things. on account republican leaders and this was in the new york times much like the tea party and i quote, those idiots, those people, appearing have never been in office and know nothing about being in office. yet today, he is leading with the same republicans, with the house caucus, the same republicans that work with ted cruz shut down the government. they shut it down. so seems like now they subscribe to this new radical republican. mainstream americans categorically rejected. public policy polling released a survey of independent voters in ohio, not democrats, not republicans, but a large swath of americans. who are now independents. this should serve as a wake-up call to the republican party. 70% of the vote in ohio said a supreme

he should be able to nominate someone he sees fit. what is your plan? >> well, it's been more than 80 years, i think about that time, since somebody was nominated in the president's last year. it just isn't something that's done and the reason it isn't, we were right in the middle of a presidential campaign and somebody is going to win that and the person who wins that is going to have the right to replace justice scalia whether a democrat or republican. and i think it's pushing it to try to believe that they should be doing that this year. >> what about the possibility, quickly, we're almost out of time, of a recess appointment by president obama? >> well, that would be very hard to do. we're talking about, first of all, i don't think the senate will go in recess just for that reason. after the 4th of january, time where he could do that. that would be one of the most offensive things anybody could do and i don't think even president obama would do that. but if that's the way it is, i think that the senate will find a way of being in recess and will pr

reform is a nominations system. the approximate cost of those reforms was on the part of antiwar democrats and women and minorities that deals system cut them out of the action, that deals system famously categorized as old white men talking in smoke-filled rooms was not representative of the party and with the party was to come in. between 1968 in 1972 and then it to 76, a whole series of commissions were appointed to democratic party. i write about this in the book, who the players were and what they were thinking about. they fundamentally changed the nomination system. so what it had been from about 81032 all the way to 1968. so that if it expand of years. think about it this way. between 1832 and 1968, presidential candidates kind of knew how to do this. they note that nominating system was. after 1968, the world changed. the democrats changed it inadvertently for the republicans as well because in that period of time, democrats were still a strong party throughout the country. there was the remains of the new d

he should nominate. the republicans have a duty to decide what they want to do. >> does matt have a point? >> not really. i mean, first of all, it's such terrible news about nino scalia. such a giant of the supreme court. a conservative hero. i knew him reasonably well. a wonderful man. no. the democrats destroyed bob bork's chances in 1987. when president bush nominated miguel estrada for the d.c. circuit court, there was a filibuster. be supreme court nominee. he would be the first hispanic put on the court by george bush. honestly, turnabout is fair play. maybe mitch mcconnell should have been more coy. the president is entitled to nominate whoever he wants. the republicans need to explain why we do not want the supreme court going in the direction of president obama wants it going in. >> the senate debate will be a bit of kabuki theater right now. hard to imagine how the president, not impossible, but hard to imagine he'll get someone through. meantime, this makes the supreme court, right at the cent

how does anybody else get the gop nomination?well, obviously, cruz and rubio continue what they're doing, they're going to lose. simply how it works. if you look at nevada. trump won everything. every demographic. he won every subcategory in the electorate. for rubio and cruz, i think cruz has to stop defensively. forget about the liar and the dirty tricks. he got distracted. ended up on the defense, a waste time. he needs to find an attack line. and i think it might also apply to rubio. what possibly would work against trump? i think a kind of, you want to do a distraction. i think you go after him on the tax returns. i think romney is on to something. i think it can be deflected. i'm not sure it will be effective. but nothing else that has been tried will work. and also, they both have to work on defending their home state. if either loses his home state to trump, they have to pull out. >> you agree, trump's best position at this moment to roll the table. >> he is way above that. he is in a position where unless something chang

he shall nominate. >> it doesn't say when he shall nominate. >> he is supposed to do his job.ll nominate and if the republicans don't want to do anything about it they don't or vote them down. >> the congress has a lot on its plate this year. i'm being a little bit facetious we are all sitting here like well the president is going to have to do this and congress -- we know if the shoe were on the other foot the democrats would be stopping this and chuck schumer arguedúb it should be stopped. >> i would be arguing the same thing at that point. >> the idea that the democrats who stopped phenomenal judges like mcgel la and little alan la fear. la veer. >> not to mention the two of us or four of us. south carolina congressman trey gowdy is home on the south carolina campaign trail with marco rubio. is he taking a quick break to go "on the record." that's next. former bush 43 has news. he has a new job. that's coming up. some cash back cards are, shall we say, unnecessarily complex. limiting where you can earn bonus cash back... then those places change every few months... please.

they knew what the nominating system was. after 1968 the world changed, the democrats changed it inadvertently for the republicans as well. democrats were still a very strong party for what the country. there were the remains of the new deal coalition so there were a lot of legislatures in democratic control. what happened in this period of time was as the democrats in the legislature passed laws creating primaries they created primaries for the republicans as well so what we have during this period of time is the transformation of the old system to the new system and put simply the old system was semi public system. it was hard to see. goldwater in 1964 completely -- the republican establishment by getting enough delegates to win the convention even when nelson rockefeller is winning primaries. something that is inconceivable today. but the world really did change in this period of time. and has so understanding that change, let me talk about a couple of the features of the current system which has remained more or less the

the president can nominate whoever he want. the senate shouldn't move forward on it until after the election. november. one of the key -- i'm sorry. >> so if you're elected president, will you promise not the make an appointment in your final year? >> i'm not saying the president can't do it. i'm saying we're not moving forward on it in the senate. >> he shouldn't? >> he shouldn't. he has the legal right to do it. as president, i would recognize the precedent. in the last 80 years, in the last year of a president's term, there should not be an appointee put in place. this will be an issue. the voters will choose a new president, who i believe will be me, should then fillhat vacancy for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. >> donald trump says he doesn't think about impeachment of george bush anymore. he's not backing off the about president bush lying about weapons of mass destruction in iraq. given those statements, is donald trump still a nominee you could support if he's chosen for the nomination? >> would have hoped

there are 160 justice nominated over the years and 36 of them were nominated and for some reason never got a vote in a number of cases. there is a lot of precedent here you can ignore. one precedent we should not ignore is i am very upset. the majority leader yesterday slandered my other dear friend, the chairman of the judiciary committee, senator grassley, by calling him inept as the committee chairman. there is no room for that kind of language. even if it was true and it isn't. senator grassley is one of the most effective hard working advi decent senators in the united states senate. everybody know he treats people fairly. so i hope we can get rid of that kind of language and start treating people with decency and with regard. we differ widely with the democrats on this issue and other issues. we are not slandering them. i would stand up if a republican did this. it just shouldn't happen. on tuesday, i rose to honor the memory of the late justice antonin scalia. i know him well. with this passing the nation lost one of its greatest supreme court justice's to serve and i lost a gr