can anything derail his track to the nomination? is it fair to say that the republican party is ready to pull out all of the stops to try to take out trump? bill whalen: is there a nuclear option within the republican party for stopping trump? and i think yes, there is a nuclear option, which is to try to deny him 1,237 delegates, the number he needs to win on the first ballot in cleveland. sam: hoover fellow bill whalen is talking about a game of delegate keep-away. trump only has about a quarter of the pledged delegates that he needs to seal up a nomination. ted cruz: for the candidates who have not yet won a state, who have not racked up significant delegates-- sam: the prevailing republican strategy is to consolidate the field, forcing trump to go head to head with either ted cruz or marco rubio. except whalen explains that polling shows that that would backfire. bill: and they posed hypotheticals of trump vs. rubio, and trump vs. cruz. trump beat rubio by i think 6 points, he beat cruz by 13 points, so the narrative of trump lo

be changed for future nominations. but let me start with the confirmation process of the past decade. as i mentioned earlier, presidents reagan and bush have named eight nominees for six positions on the court during their presidential terms. this is not the first time in our history that a strong, ideological president and his loyal successor have combined to shape the court. washington and adams made 18 nominations, of which 14 were confirmed and served among the courts six justices. presidents lincoln and grant nominated 13 candidates, of whom nine were confirmed and served. and presidents roosevelt and truman named 13 justices, all confirmed in the combined terms in the white house. what distinguishes the reagan-bush justices from these historical parallels, however, is that half of them have been nominated in a time of a divided government. ofeach of these times, each these previous times, a sweeping, nationwide consensus bysted, as reflected political branches of like-minded individuals, which justified the sweep

the belief hillary clinton if nominated, gets nomination of her party and presidency, she would appoint someone who could be the polar opposite of antonin scalia and donald trump this morning said he would look for someone as much like scalia as possible. that would be his measure for picking supreme court justice. chad, thank you so much. >> anytime. martha: great analysis this morning. bill: as we move through this story, 30 minutes away from seeing the president, in a moment, mike lee, republican senator from utah on senate judiciary committee. will the committee do? we'll talk to him live. jonathan turley, constitutional expert, professor, both are live next on this breaking news in "america's newsroom." month. year after year. then one night, you hydroplane into a ditch. yeah... surprise... your insurance company tells you to pay up again. why pay for insurance if you have to pay even more for using it? if you have liberty mutual deductible fund™, you could pay no deductible at all. sign up to immediately lower your deductible by $100. and keep lowering it $100 annually, until it's

aside from that, i saw the guy obamawhen president nominated -- after the nominated him.ike him. she was very personable talking mother was watching and crying her eyes out. he respected that the position. you could see he had self-respect for the positions that it has held -- that he has held. i don't know how he has voted. that i heard that he with liberal on gun rights. it is thetalk about people who get to decide. president obama's nominee being put on the back burner -- that is his job and his responsibility. the job of the house and senate, i suppose both, have the job of deciding on whether this guy is or nayand giving a yay vote. host: are you concerned there are eight justices on the court? caller: the last guy that spoke, if someone were to drop dead out of the blue, or got her bid, have some kind of ailments that would preclude them from showing followy day, you need to the rule. that is what i did not understand. politics is akin to strategy. how are we going to make this work for us? it has nothing to do with the law. host: ok. of next on our line -- on the r

she now has nearly 2/3 of the delegates she need for the nomination. here is nancy cordes. thank you, north carolina! >> clinton had more thanking to do than her own campaign had expected. she swept four states by as much as 31 points. a feat sanders did not acknowledge at his rally. important election. we will win. >> reporter: in a statement the vermont senator insisted he is still on a path to win the nomination. and that the primary calendar favors us in the weeks and months to come. but, that's also what he said before last night's blowout. >> in a memo today, the clinton campaign laid out the odds against sanders. nearly half of the remaining pledge delegates are in just three states. california, new york, and pennsylvania. senator sanders would have to win them by 20 points. and rack up a string of victories just to pull even. in short they argued, clinton's delegate lead is nearly insurmountable. >> we are moving closer to securing the democratic party nomination and winning this election in november! >> the clinton camp knows there is a fine l

nomination made and -- seven months. we could complete that entire process by the first monday in october. the beginning of the supreme court session. there is no precedent for the president declining to nominate somebody in virtually -- and virtually no precedence for the senate to ignore a nomination that's made. the people overwhelmingly re-elected president obama in 2012 to a term that does not end until january 20, 2017, and we fully expect the president to fulfill his duty to nominate a qualified individual to the supreme court to fill the current vacancy. a failure of the senate to act this year would be unprecedented. there's ample time for that to take place. the longest confirmation process or a single nominee has been 125 days, on historic average 25 days it takes to confirm or reject a nominee. as of today, the senate has 216 days until the first monday in october. if the senate were to refuse to consider any of president obama's nominations, the -- and the senate has -- they've said they want the next presid

he was 64 when he was nomined. garland was nominated by the senate in his present position by 70 votes to 23 back in 1997. so merrick garland has had 19 years experience, and he has been waiting for his chance to go to the supreme court. his name was in the frame when president obama nominated elaine kagan, and son you sotomayor, but he got passed over at that point. his reputation is one of moderation. he is seen as a conservative when it comes to criminal justice issues. and the president has said today that he gave considerable attention to making this pick for the supreme court. he consulted legal experts up and down the land, and reached out to every

there were nomination. there were given a job to do the constitution of the united states, a job the american people want us to do, and the chairman of this committee is saying for the next year the judiciary committee will not do its job. our republican colleagues claim this is not about politics of the fact that they don't like this president. the american people ought to have a say in deciding who will appoint the next justice. they say let the people decide. well, the people have decided. if you asked the american people they will tell you. the data is overwhelming. the cnn poll last week found 58 percent of americans want to see the president nominates someone to the court this year and have the personality hearing. just yesterday "wall street journal" largely liberal journal on the 55 percent of registered voters disapprove the republican decision to block a court nominee, sight unseen. "washington post" abc poll 63% say the senate should hold hearings. and these numbers hold steady in red states, blu

'let restart with the nominating -- "let restart with the nominating process and how that might change in the next election." just so they would not be any confusion he repeated it to sentences later. "with this in mind, let me start with the nomination process and how that is this might be changed in the next administration and how i would urge to change it as chairman of the judiciary committee were i to be chairman in the next administration." chairman biden was very clear. whatever you do, all the spin in the world is not going to change that fact. now, we have talked a lot about the biden rules, but we have not talked about why he felt so strongly that conducting hearings in these circumstances would be bad for the nominee, but the process, and bad for the senate. it was because under these circumstances, the process would not be about constitutional interpretation and the proper rule of the court -- role of the court. it would be a hyper political slugfest as chairman biden said. "were the nation to be treated to a consideration of -- all it will get in such circumstance is parti

problem nominates a judge for the supreme court. >>> a race for the nomination of the next u.s.resident. >>> arrested in january, a man was trying to steal a propaganda poverty from his hotel. nothing yang. last month the 21-year-old told the press conference that he made the worst mistake of his life. the argentinian navy has sunk a chinese boat it said it was fishing illegally in its waters. the boat was intercepted more than 1400 kilometers south of buenos aires and instead of responding to warnings it ran the naval festival. shots were fired into its hull. it's four members were skewed and then arrested. the chinese ministry has lodged a complaint and called for an investigation. >> the national congress has approved a five-year plan which aims for .5% float each year by 2020. despite growth in 2015 falling to the lowest level for 25 years. adrian brown reports. >> it's not a place for surprises or displays of dissent. as always this was a tightly controlled political gathering where delegates rubber stamp decisions made in private by the leaders. >> we are full of confidenc

he'd like to consider the nomination.nt someone like rob portman takes this hard line. he's in a very difficult senate race this year. a blue state. something that's a risk of losing for certain. but they believe the republicans were up for re-election by and large believe this is a good issue for them to run on. democrats think they are out of step, but the republicans really feel that if they can make the case to voters that they'll be the firewall against a justice, it gives them an issue to run on. it will fire up their base. kelly ayotte, i had a chance to speak to her. also in a difficult senate race. sure, she may meet with merrick garland but does not think this process should go forward. that's very significant. mitch mcconnell has been able to hold his troops in line as of now. >> chuck grassley,y in chairman of the committee may meet with him, have a cup of coffee but not going to have any hearings or allow any roll call votes. how is this battle going to play out out there on the campaign trail? >> well, i thi

i think only barack obama would ever have made this nomination.rmer constitutional law professor. i think he takes this nomination deeply personally. and there's an inib

assuming trump gets the nomination. >> absolutely. >> what do you make, a.j. -- >> he'll get the nominationlishment guys, they want it to get to the convention to disenfranchise the people that voted not the way they wanted. o.j.? >> yeah, well, look. the establishment is about all about cheap labor, cronyism, offshores and outsourcing the economy and donald trump not only doesn't stand for that, he's against it firmly. his nomination and it will come, you can bet on that, is the end of their gravy train and of course they're going to try to pull every trick in the book. i should warn them not to because the people are not going to stand for being disenfranchised that way. he will have the plurality of the support. trying to deny the nominee that has the plurality of those delegates, it's going to cause havoc. i don't think they want that. >> i think it's worse than havoc. they'll say to the people that voted, they'll all stay home an i'll stay home with them. larry? >> right. >> and, sean, i analyzed it a little bit different. i like ted cruz. virtually nothing he stands for. >> i like him

traditionally the committee refers to the nomination -- refers the nomination to the full senate for a vote. this is the web page of the senate judiciary committee. it says not you hold a hearing when you want to. not you'll hold a hearing when you like the nominee, but when you don't -- not to hold a hearing only when your party has the presidency. it says, i'll read it again, "the nomination is" not may be. is referred to the united states senate where the senate judiciary committee holds a hearing where the nominee provides testimony in response to the questions from members of the panel. it doesn't say the senate judiciary might hold a hearing. could at its whim hold a hearing. it says hold a hearing, no qualifiers. and so, mr. president, we ought to be holding a hearing and we ought to be debating whether to hold a hearing now in the chamber of the judiciary committee on thursday at 10:00 a.m., as we have done week after week after week when other important issues are being debated on the floor of the united states senate. we can do both. we can move cara. i admit it doesn't hav

nominated a white i thought he should have named, nominated either a black person or a woman. he must be so racist. obama is a racist. host: all right, let's go to main on the republican line. francis. caller: i would like to not have obama come out or try to appoint , because court justice obama himself, in my opinion and media,have read from the obama is not american citizen. and a supreme court justice have to investigate obama, and they never did. he is not american citizen. he was born in kenya, africa. we will move on from that. not the topic of this segment of phone calls. now we have dave. which of senate consider the supreme court nominee? caller: yes, i think they should because it says the president should pick the nominee for the supreme court. it doesn't say anything anywhere that the voters picked for it, and that is letting the voters picked. the voters are not given the right to pick supreme court justice. so yes, they should vote. host: all right, thanks dave. that will do it for your phone calls. we get another chance to weigh in on washington journal tomorro

there have been politics involved in nominations in the past.it should be pointed out in each of those instances, democrats ultimately confirmed a nominee put forward by a republican president. i also know that because of justice scalia's roll on the court in american law and the fact that americans are closely divided on a number of issues before the court it is tempting to make this confirmation process and extension of our divided politics, the squabbling going on in the news every day. but to go down that path would be wrong. it would be a betrayal of our best traditions and a betrayal of the vision of our founding documents. at a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when political rhetoric and courtesy are so treated like they are disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight and treat the process of appointing a supreme court justice with the experience it deserves because our supreme court really is unique. it is supposed to be above politics. it has to be, it should stay that way. to suggest that so

nomination.woodruff: mash ahow does this-- you were saying to us earlier this is kind of an unpress departmented situation where the senate is not only saying we're not going to hold hearings. many of the republicans are saying we don't even want to meet with him. >> yes, that's true. >> woodruff: how does this compare with other nominations? >> well, it doesn't compare with any in my past, and i've covered confirmation hearings and nominations since the robert bork hearings in 1987. even as controversial as robert bork was, the senate did have a hearing. to say they-- some senators to say they would not even meet judge garland i think is unprecedented, and, you know, personally, a little disrespectful. this is a presidential nomination to the u.s. supreme court. >> woodruff: seth waxman, finally, you know it's already being sid that merrick garland is a sacrificial lamb, that given the disposition of the senate majority, that he isn't going to get a hearing, that his name is being put out there

. >> lewis powell was 64 when nominated in 1962. in the modern era of the court, that's the oldest nominee that's been confirmed. i think his age is certainly part of the politics of the situation. it's an implicit statement to senate republicans confirm my 63-year-old nominee now during president obama's year in office for prepare for hillary clinton to nominate somebody who may be in his or her 40s. that's the tradeoff that senate republicans are facing. it certainly seems at the moment that they are happy to just kick the can down the road, think that a republican may be elected president, something that has happened. they have put their line in the sand about this nominee. so this is a very interesting ceremony coming up. but the idea that merrick garland will be on the supreme court anytime, perhaps ever, seems remote. >> that's a fair point. dana, you spent time looking at the various contingencies out there. it seems extremely doubtful after all the public comments, since antonin's sudden death, that they are going to change

the nomination of garland will play big in the election. the presidential race is looking clear for the frontrunner. voters help donald trump and hillary clinton to take primaries in florida, north carolinaish, annorth carolina, illinois. missouri is too close to call on both sides. hillary clinton holding a slim lead over bernie sanders. and the same on the republican side where trump leads ted cruz by eight points. hillary clinton has nearly 100 pledged delegates, that's half of what is needed for the nomination. the lead is larger when you factor in superdelegates. trump has th's victory in the sunshine state forced marco rubio to drop his campaign. let's go to al jazeera's randall pinkston live in miami. randall, donald trump basically trumped marco rubio. why did marco rubio do so poorly in his own state. nine or 11 months ago when rubio announced he was the darling of the new generation of republicans who could bring all the sides together. but if his senate tenure, he also moved over to the moderate side coming up with a plan to have

he was nominated in 1995 to the d.c.t was not confirmed by the republicans because there was election going on. yeah, as andy said, that's also a sign that he is somebody who over the years has been considered by repeatedly by presidents as somebody who they might want nominate for a court. >> you know, i'm just reading on twitter that the senator patrick leahy just tweeted out saying it's been an average of 70 days for the person who's nominated formerly to actually get appointed and this should all be wrapped up by memorial day. rate the chances of that for us. >> the president had said from the beginning that the senate will have plenty of time to see this nomination through, to hold hearings, to have meetings. but the senate republicans who control the senate have just said they don't see that happening. they don't want to hold meetings. they don't want to do hearings. there will be a fight that's taking place with outside roups. at this point, we haven't seen any signs that the senate republicans are going to move e

the president nominates, we decide to confirm. we think the important principle in the middle of this presidential election is that american people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision. not this lame duck president on the way out the door, but the next president. next year. >> you talk about principle, anything that happens in washington involves principle and politics and what we see with mark kirk is a senator or republican senator up in a tough re-election battle and thinking this is a hard line to hold. and i guess i have to ask you, isn't this going to be a hard argument to make over the next seven months? if you're going to say the president can't decide something, can't get his nominee confirmed because it's an election year, couldn't you say the same thing about the u.s. senate that you shouldn't pass any laws? you shouldn't do anything because in a sense you're a lame duck congress? >> no, we're following the biden rule. he was chairman in 1992, a presidential election year. he said the senate sho

their job is to hear the president's nomination, at least to hear the president's nomination. they are hoping that a republican can get in there, so they can have the kind of supreme court justice they want. it is appalling that they won't let them hear. host: that is built from texarkana. another view from texas. we will go to houston. gene is on the republican mind. caller: i personally believe that we should wait. there were too many things that could be decided in the courts ghtt need to be done ri because of we don't, there will be a lot of mistakes made. different things like immigration and in the courts that need to wait. i'm thinking we need to get a good justice like scalia was to outweigh everything so we can on everything,t so people can understand why we have a supreme court. thank you for taking my call. host: thank you, gene. the issue came up a short while ago. the canadian prime minister justin trudeau is in washington dc. the first question for president obama at their joint news conference was that -- about a potential supreme court nominee. [video clip] res

merrick garland was formally nominated.re is an empty seat on the supreme court after justice antonin scalia died in february. president obama's choice must now be confirmed by the u.s. senate. 63 year old merrick garland is chief judge of the d.c. court p op -- of appeals. the republicans have promised to veto anyone that obama nominates. but garland could be seen as a compromise nominee. al jazeera's rosiland jordan joins us live from washington, d.c. ros explain what are the wider implications of this nomination? >> reporter: well, this is certainly coming right into the heart of the political atmosphere here in the united states because this is going to be turned into a campaign issue for whoever ends up be the presidential nominees on the republican and democratic ticket. the obama administration argument is this, i have a duty to nominate. the senate has a duty to give advice and consent. but the president is also threatening a big political fight. he did say, however, that this is not just a compromise candidate, but

, whom they would nominate. we're going to take a break, i think. mitch mcconnell has taken the floor, but we'll complete that thought on the other side. >> republicans in the senate, mitch mcconnell. >> so of course, of course, the american people should have a say in the court's direction. it is a president's constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice, and it is the senate mfs constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent. as chairman grassley and i declared weeks ago, and reiterated personally to president obama, the senate will continue to observe the biden rule. so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland. for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. either way, our view is this. give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. let me remind colleagues of what vice president biden said when he was chairman of t

it's not clear if a president nominates in t s and the senates to act.ave basically the supreme court -- you are saying that the supreme court would basically be engaged in this question of who would be -- who would become one of their members. and i think that -- i think the court would be reluctant to do that. you know, and i think that -- i'm not a lawyer, but i know that there are very significant questions of standing and sort of judicial -- whether this could be litigated. i don't see it heading in that direction. it doesn't mean that, you know, if we get far enough down this road and neither party has moved much and that turns out to be something people look at, but it's certainly an interesting thought experiment at this point. >> from time to time the senate goes into recess, could the president appoint someone during that recess to the court? >> if they formally went into recess, they could. but i think the general understanding in fact -- the senate majority whip indicated to us that it's almost -- they are almost certain to stay in sessions t

there's been politics involved in nominations in the past. although it should be pointed out that in each of those instances democrats ultimately confirmed a nominee put forward by a republican president. i also know that because of justice scalia's role on the court and in american law and americans are divided on a number of issues before the court it is tempting to make this confirmation process an extension of our divided politics. the squabbling going on in the news every day. but to go down that path would be wrong. it would be a betrayal of our best traditions. and a betrayal of the vision of our founding documents. and at a time when our politics are so polarized. at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and curtesy and comedy are often treated like they're disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight and treat the process of appointing a supreme court justice with the care it deserves. our supreme court really is unique. it's supposed to be above politics. it has to be and it should stay that w

i'm anne-marie green. >>> the nomination of of president obama's nomination of merrick garland. garland is generally respected and chief judge of the influential d.c. court of appeals. garland was confirmed by seven

support the nomination of mr.arland and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. >> i believe mr. garland is well qualified for the court of appeals. >> i can find no fault with the person the president has put forward. >> democrats said similar things about john roberts. he's been nominated for the same circuit court. >> did he just suddenly become unqualified? >> barack obama voted against him for the supreme court because it is different from the appellate court. it's a much more political part of the judiciary. one is entitled to weigh someone's constitutional philosophy. it was a clever pick by president obama. it does put a little more pressure on republicans because a lot of people respect merrick garland. he is a little more moderate of a liberal. i think they're entitled to deny him a hearing at this point. what if hillary clinton is ahead of donald trump by 20 points? does mitch mcconnell and chuck grassley -- >> then they bring garland back. >> you get a better moderate liberal judge than if you let hi

garland's nomination. but do you see a scenario where there could be a confirmation hearing before the election? >> i not only see a scenario but an obligation on the part of the republican party. and eventually this position of staunch absolute resistance, even to meet with a mnominee, where a vote is unstable and untenable, this voice and phase, will i think be extraordinarily persuasive to the american people and prompt the outrage and outcry that should give the republicanes a reason to go forward despite the majority leaders position. and i believe that there is a chance. only a chance at this point, that there will be a vote. >> is that the strategy that you're hearing? i was on this call with white house officials who were involved in this process a short time ago. they were asked specifically the question of how do you make this happen and we never really got a good answer to that question. i'm curious if you've had time and even before we knew that it was merrick garland to talk to your republican

merrick garland has nominated. there is an empty seat on the supreme court after justice antonin scalia died in february. president obama's nomination must now be confirmed by the senate. >> he walked away from a comfortable and lucrative law practice to return to public service. he served as a prosecutor in president george wh bush's administration. he took a 50% pay cut. he traded in his elegant office for a windowless closet that smelled of cigarette smoke. this was a time when crime in washington had reached epidemic proportions. he quickly made a name for himself going after corrupt politicians and criminals. >> let's go to roslind jordan, who is in washington, d.c. >> merrick garland has been on the federal courts of appeals in washington for nearly 20 years, but he built his career namely as a prosecutor in the unabomber and oklahoma city bombing cases when he was presented as nominee to replace antonin scalia on wednesday, he noted a bit of his philosophy that he said came from his family. >> as my parents

or a hearing on a supreme court nomination.you know, you spend enough time on the hill, there are a number of his public and -- republican colleagues that are amazed at that and uncomfortable with that, especially some of those up for reelection. if you are the chairman of the committee, you're supposed to make decisions based on what you think is best. now, when i was chairman of last two years of president bush's term, sure, i had some democrats say "why are you putting through his nomination?" i said because they are there. it is what the constitution says, and i think it is a fair think to do. they obviously feel different. the heck with the constitution. the heck with fairness. i spoke on the floor thursday with senator grassley there, saying what he is doing is totally unprecedented. i cannot see why -- turning it back to the constitution, you know, the president -- the constitution says the president shall nominate -- "shall," not maybe we should -- it said he shall nominate, which president obama intends to do. everyone

senate on february 8, 1943, 28 days after his nomination. mr. president, i wanted to put this set of facts on the record to make it clear there is absolutely no excuse for what the senate republicans are doing with the scalia nomination. there is no excuse for the senate republicans to ignore their constitutional responsibility, a constitution which they have sworn to uphold and defend. we're not in the midst of a war. we're in the midst of a presidential campaign, and that explains, that in and of itself explains why senator mcconnell just hours after the announcement of the death of antonin scalia made it clear that the united states senate would not accept its responsibility under the constitution to fill this vacancy on the supreme court. it's a sad reality, that the republicans have made this decision and will leave the supreme court for up to a year with this vacancy. when was the last time the supreme court had a vacancy for over a year? it goes back to the civil war when we were at war with ourselves with thousands being killed on a

what's the issue over the nomination? >> reporter: basically he's caught in a showdown between capitol hill and the white house. less than 24 hours after that nomination, -- >> the importance of hard work and fair dealing. >> reporter: a handful of republican senators have agreed to meet with the president's supreme court nominee on capitol hill today. the white house is encouraged. >> that's a good thing. there's a constitutional responsibility that members of the united states senate have to consider the president's nominee to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. it's as simple as that. >> reporter: chuck grassley, head of the senate judiciary committee may meet with garland in april after the break. others are undecided. >> if i do meet with him, it may not be a good use of his time because i'm not going to change my position because it's based on the principle. >> reporter: the senate's top republican spoke with garland by phone, but says he won't meet face to face. in a new op-ed, mitch mcconnell calls waiting for th

he has nominated someone to fill that vacancy.epublicans to join us in doing the job that the senate is supposed to do. hold our hearings and have a vote. give our advice and consent on this nominee. you know, it's pretty straightforward. it's there in the constitution what we're asking for is do your job. >> and democrat senators will be holding a do your job event outside of the supreme court today. joining me now, msnbc legal correspondent ari melber. good to see you. >> good morning. >> senator mcconnell sticking to his guns saying there will be no hearing. where does it leave the court? >> with eight justices, which is not wholly unusual. they have been down that road before. what's unusual is the notion of leaving it at eight justices for a long time or through the election due to the political calendar with no pretense of looking at the potential replacement. we can show you the polling on this. when you ask people what should they do, leave vacant, 37% and vote is 48%. 28% approve of that and 55% disapprove. i want to be c

i think donald trump's on his way to the nomination. i think if he's a little over or under and he gets denied the nomination you're going to have a political civil war in the republican party that it won't recover from by november and you'll hand the election to hillary clinton. >> if donald trump is a little under when he goes in to the convention, that means he will be going in as the weakest nominee since ford who did a very good job of losing. >> absolutely. but i think that the republican party is already in a civil war because even though they don't like trump, they definitely don't like cruz. so who is the nominee going in. it was interesting today because they alluded the problem with cruz is he created him to lus fer. there's a serious problem now who the item of the republican party is and the fact that they can't identify a third candidate that says we should all go behind kasich as an example that's a problem. one of the reasons that rubio dropped out is with the hope of bringing to the republican party, but they don't like

that's not true. .e nominated 11 of them for re-nominations that president clinton put up, confirmedse too quickly. everybody else was locked. when we got the majority back it was filibuster. he went on and on until the american people got frustrated with it. good judges that they could trust, and they believed these were. they cut this deal and said ok .e won't filibuster anymore we debated confirmed those too quickly. everybody else was locked. when we got the majority back it was filibuster. it. i opposed filibustering. i did not previously believed filibustering, but i would use it, but only in a restrained way, when i think it is really important. to stick with that. then what happens? we get to the majority, and the republican majority is not willing to fill the d.c. circuit whatsoever. we said, we are not going to affirm those. senator graham party blocked president bush from filling one of them. night it sent to the circuit because they had -- the ninth circuit because they had a shortage. i was less than perfectly consistent, i will knowledge, but first and foremost, republi

mark: who would you nominate?y not be the best judgment to have my and/or, if they want to be confirmed for the supreme court. it is a point to have judges that have a government that believe that women are equal members of society. a case argued, as a mom, is a woman, it makes a huge difference having different voices in the room, who have actually walked in the shoes of women in this country. grateful forremely agen.ddition of h mark: coming out, harold ford junior. ♪ mark: joining us now, former fordessman harold junior and dancy c. noir. neither of you are here as surrogates. we are going to have a chat. why will you start with republicans? >> i will start with you >>. >>would you vote for donald trump in the general election? >> i will not vote for him in the primary or in the general. i'm confident that marco rubio will be the nominee. if he is not the nominee, i think there will be another republican in the general election, even if they are not the nominee. >> running as an independent? >> correct. >> who

-- refers the nomination to the full senate for a vote. this is the webpage of the senate judiciary committee this is not you hold the hearing when you want to, not when you like the nominee but when you don't, not only when your party has the presidency. it says, and i will read it again, the nomination is, not may be, is referred to the united states senate where the senate judiciary committee holds a hearing with the nominee provides testimony in response to questions from members of the panel. it does not say the senate judiciary might hold the hearing, could at its when. there are no qualifiers. and so, mr. president, we ought to be holding a hearing and debating whether to do so now on thursday at 10:00 a.m. as we have done week after week after week with other important issues being debated on the floor of the united states senate. we can do both. does not have the funding i would like to see. we can meet in the judiciary committee. so, i do not understand the decision by the chairman of the judiciary committee, the same reverence t

if he was going to expect the senate to react to this nomination, he would have to nominate someone to create political outside pressure that would suggest the republicans could lose in november if they balked. that would be a nominee that was hispanic, that was a woman, who was black or all three, if that's possible. merrick garland has no outside political traction whatsoever. it's a little puzzling as to why the nomination was made. aside from the fact when he lectures the senate, which i suppose he can there. they have a constitutional duty to act, this is a president who goes to war on his own. he does treaties on his own. he spies without congressional authorization on his own. so you got the pot calling the kettle black here, and that's clearly not going to move the republicans. in an odd way he really had a chance. >> you can understand it if the republicans saw somebody from the other side of the political rainbow get into the supreme court. they obviously wouldn't like it. they want their own person in there. i would guess that also hillary clinton or bernie sanders wouldn't