the 1987 rejection of robert bork at the end of an epic conflict between competing constitutional visions, and the subsequent withdrawal of douglas ginsburg days after president reagan selected him to succeed bork as his nominee. this fierce fight, which none of us, i suspect, will ever forget in 1991 over clarence thomas's nomination to the court, which broke chief justice rehnquist's record for receiving the most negative votes in senate history. this change to the court over the last few years has already been dramatic. professor pointed out, there is every reason to see that we may see as many as five more justices retired within the next four years. stand likelihood then, we at the halfway point of the remaking of the supreme court. with as many coming controversies as we saw over the past two terms combined. by the time we arrive at the , thereection year, 1996 is a substantial chance that no member of the court serving on the court in june of 1986 will remain on the bench. replacement of the court in just 10 years has only one precedent since the court was permanently expanded to n

the english language when they blocked robert bork's appointment to the supreme court. -- so they broke the rules for the sole purpose of packing the d.c. circuit court of appeals with like-minded judges so the president one have to worry about judges who might questione his overreaching authority on the constitution by issuing executive orders or circumventing the role of congress. this is a playbook that has been written by our colleagues across the hall. do they expect us to operate by a different set of rules than they themselves advocated for? in 2007, this is 18 months before 18 months before president george w. bush left office. the senator from new york set for the rest of this president's term, 18 months, we should

i saw what happened to robert bork. i saw how he was smeared. and because he was smeared, that seat remained open and was filled early 1988. if that's the other side's argument, then i think we all know how weak their position is. finally, let me say this. i said yesterday and i want to say it again, the other side knows that the nominee is not going to be confirmed. everyone knows it. the only reason that they're complaining about a hearing that was canceled today or i mean a hearing about the nominee is because they want to make the process as political as possible. that goes to the heart of the matter. we're not getting to politicize this process in the middle of a presidential election year. we're going to let the people have a voice. i yield the floor. a senator: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from maine. a senator: madam president, first i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a s

even as controversial as robert bork was, the senate did have a hearing.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 and is going nowhere. is he prepared-- knowing him, is he prepared to be just that? >> well, i should say that as close as i feel to merrick, i haven't spoken to him since justice scalia passed away, we haven't had a conversation on this. but based on what i opinion him, i can tell you he is the kind of person who feels tremendously honored to have been nominated, to have been considered by the president. and he's not the kind of person who holdaise grudge or gets angry over displays anger. if it turns out that he's not given a fair, respectful tre

held confirmation hearings and just waged vicious campaigns of character assassination against robert bork and -- merrick garland by all accounts is a decent man. he doesn't deserve that treatment any more than bork and thomas did. >> and well qualified, for doubt about it, but if there were hearings, there could be a vicious fight -- it would be outside groups to come in and do the skirty work? >> the alternative would be the republicans surrending saying you can change the balance of theanytime you want, but we can't? >> the politics of this people say republicans will pay a price for this opposition. do you agree? >> i completely disagree with that idea. i think james is right. if they were toy simply go ahead and say to the democrats, you want to change the comp position of the court, 5-4, that's the way it falls, the republican party would implode. i mean, this is such a voting issue for republicans. to the politics, i don't think it's a big voting issue for most democrats. it is for the activists, but out there in the country, the supreme court is not the thing foremost in their mind

the presidential election of to get approval but we're going to push for deputy defense secretary robert bork did have reassuring words for hampton roads though i don't have to worry about norfolk norfolk is ever going to be on the list is one of the finest naval platforms that the world in the entire world of but yes brock we really need to happen and there is bipartisan opposition with the offices of senator tim kaine a democrat and representative randy forbes a republican telling thirteen news now this week that they are against it and third district democratic congressman bobby scott who we just heard from that story said today it is unlikely congress would approve another round reporting live like getting thirteen years now construction on the new bon air bridge is going on right now crews broke ground today in dare county. it's a project that's been in the works for years. the new bridge will span three and a half miles and will take about three years to complete it will run parallel to the current one the old bonner bridge was built back overdue for replacement the old bridge had an ex

this is very similar to the talk about robert bork., the fact is former judge bork came in the confirmation hearing. he probably had a large majority of votes on his side. he did such a terrible job in that hearing that some of the press -- i think "the new york times" in one of the editorials referred to him as having a confirmation conversion. ultimately, the senate judiciary committee, the majority of them, voted against him, including some republicans, voted against him. the reagan white house was quietly asking him please withdraw your name. he said he wanted a vote. i, and a lot of other side whether we are for him or not, he wants a vote, he is entitled to one. he went on the floor. he had a vote. eight or more publicans voted against him. not every democrat did, but the majority did, and he was defeated. host: ask let me about the meeting john bresnahan brought up -- what was the tone of the meeting? sen. leahy: we actually started throwing chairs. it was cordial. mr. herszenhorn: that is why they have couches. you couldn't thr

better if you want to take the same policy that you didn't like, taken against clarence thomas and robert bork, how does that make you any better? >> that is where, what the democrats are talking about here. republicans will say, you know it is our right to do this and we don't think that the right way to go. some people think that republican groups got very quickly to mitch mcconnell, these conservative groups which is why you had the statement just a couple hours after antonin scalia passed away that they wouldn't entertain a nominee which some people found frankly incredible at that point but, republicans will say they don't think this is going to be an election issue. they are confident in that. democrats are not so sure. keep in mind just how long if there is never a hearing, never a confirmation vote on the floor, how long there is growing to be a vacancy here. there is not going to be a new president until january, late january of next year. usually takes about a month or two to vet someone and put them through the process. so we're looking at maybe march of next year, a year from now c

republicans were so upset when democrats defeated the nomination of robert bork to the supreme court.ole thing. you had republican senator hatch calling the rejection a deborkle. it was to put it mildly a controversial choice. he had staunchly conservative views from everything from abortion to civil rights. what is perhaps most interesting about the nomination is it marked something of a turning point in the supreme court con confirmation process. joe biden was asked about the process of bork being nominated. biden pointed out what was more or less tradition. he said a qualified nominee should get confirmed even if they disagree with it. this was months before bork was nominated. biden fold the philadelphia inquirer, say the administration sends up bork and after our investigation he looks a lot like justin antonin scalia. i'd have to vote for him. if they tear me apart, that's the medicine i'll have to take. by the following fall biden was leading the fight against bork. it's a moment that republicans point to as the start of the road to where we are today when ever nomination to th

circuit with robert bork, scalia, clarence thomas, i think understands that you do not get very far inthat world if you just verbally or physically punch someone in the face for disagreeing with you. it is survival mode, in an appeals court you need at least one other judge to boat with you. she did not get to where she isn't being almost the only woman in every context, also by being disagreeable. the funny thing is though if she came to the premier of scalia, ginsburg and she thought it was delightful. justice khalil was not there. he is introduced to the audience as a rage aria, the guy guy was wearing this big eyebrows, it was very funny. i did see when he was interviewed and asked about it he said well there is the first amendment. [laughter] >> good evening, thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. i was hoping you a comment on the fact that the court is so incredibly secretive and private yet you have all made careers and major self famous by exposing the court to the media. i was wondering what you think the role of the media and the court is going to be going forw

robert bork, democrats were not going to let ronald reagan alter the direction of the court with thismportant nomination representing -- replacing lewis powell. you can argue whether that was right or wrong but that is the world we live in. it used to be intellect and integrity, now it goes into ideology. it started with bork and we are. republicans have the right if they choose to under the existing scenario, political decision to block this nomination. whether it is the right thing to do, a good thing for the country is another matter. bill: here is what the president had to say about whether he wants to deserve a hearing. i want to play this for you. >> no one as qualified or respected as merrick garland doesn't even deserve a hearing let alone an up or down vote to join an institution as important as the supreme court when two thirds of americans believe otherwise would be unquestionable >> it is not unprecedented. his own vice president in june 1992 said if there were a supreme court vacancy in the final months of president george hw bush's term, the senate judiciary hearing shou

solicitor general robert bork quickly was named acting attorney general.lievable, literally unblechable, except that it was real. you kept saying, that couldn't be. but it was. >> i can make no further comment now other than their offices have been sealed by the fbi. >> how could you possibly bring this man to justice if it was within his power to call the investigation to a close? >> please, everyone. >> basically, the president has seized full control of the special prosecutor's office and is in full position of potentially incriminating evidence that could lead to the conviction of his closest associates and to his conviction, and that is the definition of tyranny. >> there could be no doubt this was a constitutional crisis. this is a president trying to stand above the law, and i remember thinking at the time the country is not going to stand for this. >> i think it's amazing that the country is not already fighting in the streets he's divided the country that much. >> events of the past few days leave us little choice but to move ahead with preparatio

fortis nomination and the bork nomination are definitely two flashpoints when you think about how the nomination process has become politicized and what chief justice roberts was talking about at the new england school of law just a few minutes ago. the folks i feel like on the right, bork is a rallying cry. fortis was different given his close political alliances with lyndon johnson, and he was getting paid from this nonprofit group, $10,000 a year to do something on the side. it was a little bit different, the fortis nomination got derailed for reasons that were more the character as opposed to political or constitutional beliefs. those are definitely points that still reverberate today. you have, over the years, a number of individuals you can think of, clarence thomas, harriet miers, who either went poorly or got derailed because of partisan attacks. brian: that was in 1968, which was an election year. richard nixon got to appoint warren berger, who became chief justice. heavy politics in all of this. what are you hearing on capitol hill and from the white house? gabe roth: i am hearing that it is going to be a long, slow year in the senate judiciary c

>> i would love for men and women in the tradition of antonin scalia, sandra day o'connor and robert bork. >> your showing in the polls thus far has been disappointing. where do you need to finish in iowa and new hampshire? >> competitive. i need to be in the pack. if i finished third, single digits it would be the worse finishing fourth right up there in double digits. it depends in iowa that we're competitive. u.s.a. today reports that kemp is in the race and he's competitive. if you were to say that there were only -- that i finished a distance third or fourth and i'm out of it, that would be harmful. we will be competitive. we are competitive. everything i see in michigan and iowa, minnesota, south dakota and new hampshire, that we're going to be the progressive conservative a. to the orthodox conventional herbert hoover wing of our party. >> we're almost out of time. i'll ask the last question. >> this should be a good one. >> you can point to one experience in your life that was influential and helped shape your views, what would that be and how did it help shape it? >> i don't thin

if you had told anybody early in the robert bork nomination fight that he was going to go down by a substantial they would have told you, you were crazy. everybody thought he was going to be confirmed easily. >> you know, this lame-duck -- >> so the opposite can be true, too. >> this lame-duck strategy, i believed it was the only way that you could see them acquiescing, particularly under the circumstances you just outlined. but right now mitch mcconnell and other senate republicans say they'll never go back on their word, and they fear that if they do, that there will be major consequences politically for them if they do. why are you convinced it can happen in a lame duck? >> well, because it would only be worse. if you had a president clinton or a president sanders, you would assume they would name somebody more liberal, and you can't keep blocking democratic appointments forever. so, at that point, the president, president obama, has picked somebody who is sort of a centrist liberal, who's widely, widely respected, and beloved, really, on his own court, with lots of republicans speaking up f

. >> you said this fight is bigger than robert bork in '87 and clarence thomas in 1991, why?> because the soul of the supreme court is on the lun here. there's four center right justices, four liberal juts and if president obama succeeds in appointing a fifth liberal jut -- >> let me interrupt you. we want to hear what harry reid has to say. he just met with merrick garland. >> he is -- his qualifications a about as good as you can get. he and i are both trial lawyers. i was able to talk about some of my cases and we had a good time just visiting about the law. one of his prize clerks was someone who worked for mow me for many years now down at the homeland security, serena hoy, she's a rhodes scholar. we had a great visit about her. she -- he married her. so it was really a pleasant meeting and i enjoyed it very, very much. the concern we have, after meeting this good man, why can't republicans do what they're supposed to, do their jobs? why are they afraid to meet with him? why are they afraid to hold hearings? are they afraid american people will watch these hearings and d

started in 1987 when senate democrats launched an all-out assault against the nomination of judge robert bork. it got so bad that dictionaries even created a new word. the word was to "bork" someone. it means to obstruct someone by systematically defaming or vilifying them. then in 1992, senator joe biden came down to the floor of the senate to explain his rule, the biden rule, for supreme court nominations. he said that once the presidential election is under way -- quote -- "action on a supreme court nomination," he said, "must be put off until the election campaign is over." that's the biden rule. you can't get any clearer than that. joe biden was the chairman of the senate judiciary committee at that time when he announced the biden rule. you know, he was not all that worried about having only eight justices for a while. senator biden said that a temporary vacancy on the court, he said, was quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee the president descended on our nation would have to pay for what assuredly, he said, would be a bitter fight. if the fight would have been bitter in 1992

get very, very testy and angry regarding supreme court nominees, is when the democrats killed off robert bork. bork, despite all the issues democrats had with him, they voted him down in the judiciary committee but still allowed his nomination to go to the senate floor where it was ultimately voted down. i think democrats are going to say, okay, fine, if you don't want to do this, that's one thing. at least give our nominee the dignity of being voted down on the senate floor. or at least give them the dignity of being voted down in the judiciary committee. that's where the fight is going to go. obama selected this gentleman who prosecuted the oklahoma city bomber, who was once thought of as a consensus pick, is essentially him saying, the gop has gone so far to the right, they're so obstructionist, they're willing to vote down someone who in 2010 they said would be a consensus pick because he's more moderate and they liked him more than some of the liberals i was thinking about. so mitch mcconnell and chuck grassley, the judiciary chairman, they have a situation on their hands. they have to f

and robert bork's case the committees vote to report the nomination favorably by a vote of 5-9. at the time the reagan administration was quietly asking him to withdraw his name but still he wanted to have a vote in the committee then voted to report his nomination with an unfavorable recommendation. he was voted on favorably by a vote of 9-5 so they could consider it. some democrats voted for it. eight democrats voted for it. some republicans voted for it and many republicans voted against it. he had his boat and clarence thomas's case the committee voted for his nomination favorably. that failed by a vote of 7-7. the committee then voted, even though under our normal practice having failed to get a favorable accommodation, a nomination to return to the president we then still even though it failed to get a favorable vote and was returned we have voted to report his nomination without recommendation and by 13-1 we have voted to do that. to give them a chance to be heard on the floor. events were a majority committee member opposed as was the case with robert worker clarence tho

filibustering judges, creating a new verb in the english language -- "borked" -- when they blocked robert bork's appointment to the united states supreme court, when the democratic leader invokes the nuclear option, breaking the senate rules for the sole purpose of packing the d.c. circuit court of appeals with like-minded judges. -- so -- so that the president wouldn't have to worry about judges who might question his overreaching authority of the constitution by issuing executive orders or otherwise circumventing the role of congress. this is a play book that has been written by the democratic leader and our colleagues across the aisle. do they expect us to operate under a different set of rules than they themselves advocated for? here's what senator reid's successor in the democratic caucus said in 2007. this was 18 months before president george w. bush left office. senator schumer, the senator from new york, said "for the rest of this president's term, 18 months, we should reverse the presumption of confirmation." i don't know what he's talking about. there never was a presumption of confir

now, when robert bork was nominated by president reagan, they destroyed him.stroyed his history and his personality in order to vote against him because they lacked the moral courage to say we're going to vote against him because we disagree with him. senators do not do that. if they did, they'd be free to vote their conscience. martha: so that's what they're doing, they're avoiding putting themselves in the position where they have to sort of destruct someone on a personality level or other issues other than how they would vote in the future. >> yes. there's a lot of issues going on in senator mcconnell's head. for example, he might refuse to hear a sort of centrist nominee and the three finalists whose names were leaked over the weekend, none of them is a left-wing i'd log. they're liberal democrats, as you'd expect, but not hard left. he might run the risk of having hillary clinton as the next president who will be someone who will be anathema -- martha: got to think long and hard about the strategy. >> yes. we'll watch it for you. bill: we have been watchi

first came the campaigns of character assassinations against robert bork and clarence thomas. then came the unprecedented filibusters against president george w. bush's nominees. then came the attempt to deny an up-or-down vote on samuel alito to the supreme court, a move supported by then-senators obama, biden, clinton, reid, durbin, schumer, and leahy. finally came the unilateral use of the nuclear option to blow up the filibuster and pack the d.c. circuit court of appeals. widely considered the second-most powerful court in the nation with liberal judges committed to rubber-stamping the president's agenda. those that were responsible for every single one of these major escalations in the so-called judicial confirmation wars have no credibility to lecture anyone on what a proper confirmation process should look like in this situation. for those of us who have fought against the breakdown of the confirmation process, the prospect of considering a nomination in the middle of what may be the nastiest election of my lifetime could only further damage the long-term prospects of a

and by the time that he turned to justice kennedy his first nominee, robert bork comment been rejected by the senate at the second nominee withdrew under some controversy. and the reagan administration knew that the clock was ticking and that their time was counting down the justice kennedy was not as conservative as the reagan folks would have liked but to recognize that a democratic senator to be basically picked the most conservative guy they thought would get through the democratic controlled senate. so he was a compromise candidate and his votes in the ensuing decades show that. they show that he has not been as doctrinaire as the other conservatives, those notably gay rights and same-sex marriage. >> host: the ranking democrat with the democrats in the minority as patrick leahy of vermont had issued a statement praising justice scalia and his work on my court and said the following -- should get to work without delay. guest: in this instance, >> guest: in this instance president obama has already killed two seats on the court. so his administering its money with a process. they h

-- if they do that, do you think you to havee enough time another nomination, like we had with robert bork in 1970, or conversation, and basically allow the election to decide? sec. earnest: let me make an observation that will require all of us to venture deep into the minds of republicans, so you have been warned. theypect there is a reason are resisting even holding hearings, and i suspect that reason is they know that somebody that has chief judge garland's intellect and experience is going to perform quite well in the setting of a judiciary committee hearing. there is a reason that they do not want to have him in public, under oath, on camera, asking questions, because if that happens, we will have tangible evidence for the world to see that he would be a great supreme court justice, and that is why republicans are resisting the hearings. it is motivated purely by politics. we have heard senator ron johnson, a republican from wisconsin, acknowledge as much. he has acknowledged that republicans are treating president obama's nominee to the supreme court differently than they would carr

president ronald reagan nominated judge robert bork to the supreme court in 1987.his was three years after his reelection and the year after t" the senate majority changed hands. here is how the "new york times" addressed the argument that elections have consequences. you conceded right on this chart. the president supporters insist the mla that having won the 1984 election he has every right toco try to change the court's direction. yes, but the democrats won the 1986 election, regain control of the senate, and they have every right to resist. the same circumstances exist today. by the way no one should waste time on it than you times has applied the same principle to date. it of course hasn't. in addition to 2012 and 2014,l the 2016 election will have tremendous consequences for the american people and the courts. it will do the ripping people a unique opportunity to express their opinion about the direction of the courts by electing the president nominates and the senate that gives advice and consent. republicans and democrats, and services and liberals have ver

fortis nomination and the bork nomination are definitely two flashpoints when you think about how the nomination process has become politicized and what chief justice roberts was talking about at the new england school of law in the clip you played a few minutes ago. the folks i feel like on the right, bork is a rallying cry. fortis was a little bit different given his close political alliances with lyndon johnson, and he was getting paid from this nonprofit group, $10,000 a year to do something on the side. that was a little bit different. the fortis nomination got derailed for reasons that were more the character as opposed to political or constitutional beliefs. but, yeah, those are definitely flashpoints that still reverberate today. you have, over the years, a number of individuals you can think of, clarence thomas, harriet miers, who either went poorly or got derailed because of partisan attacks. brian: well, actually, that was in 1968, which was an election year. richard nixon got to appoint warren berger, who became chief justice. heavy politics in all of this. what's your view of what you're hearing right now on capitol hill and from the white hou

fortis nomination and the bork nomination are definitely two flashpoints when you think about how the nomination process has become politicized and what chief justice roberts was talking about at the new england school of law just a few minutes ago. the folks i feel like on the cry., bork is a rallying fortis was different given his close political alliances with lyndon johnson, and he was getting paid from this nonprofit group, $10,000 a year to do something on the side. it was a little bit different, the fortis nomination got derailed for reasons that were more the character as opposed to political or constitutional beliefs. those are definitely points that still reverberate today. years, a over the number of individuals you can think of, clarence thomas, , who either went poorly or got derailed because of partisan attacks. brian: that was in 1968, which was an election year. richard nixon got to appoint warren berger, who became chief justice. heavy politics in all of this. what are you hearing on capitol hill and from the white house? gabe roth: i am hearing that it is going to be a long, slow year in the senate judiciary committee. it is going to be,

roberts. >> he's on the supreme court. but you failed. >> that's the point. you can draw these extra click lar extracurricular activities that took place. let's look at two famous cases that came before the senate. bork didn't get enough votes in committee. neither did thomas. we brought them to the floor anyway. we met with them, we had hearings, and they were brought before the floor. they could have been killed in the committee. we believed there should be a full vote. and that's what we should do now. i don't know why mcconnell's done this to his senators. he's marching these men and women over a cliff. i don't think they're going to go. he's said we're not going to meet with him, we're not going to hold hearings, we're not going to have a vote. that facade is breaking as we speak. we now have about eight or nine senators who say, oh, yeah, i guess we'll meet with him. we had a senator the day before yesterday who said, let's man up here, we're elected, we should there's going to be a break through here. >> why do you think you're going to get a hearing? mitch mcconnell has said no hearing at all. why do you think you're going to get a hearing? >> mitch mcconnell has said a lot of things. his rep

it's exactly what democrats did when robert bork was nominated to serve on the supreme court and vice president biden, former senator biden understands it completely. it's what they did when miguel estrada was nominated to the circuit court. what democrats did when samuel alito was nominated. democrats filibustered justice alito when he was the nominee. ne did everything they could to slander good, qualified people to try to score political points. it's what they do. there is no need for us to have this bitter fight joe biden worried about. republicans said there should not be a bitter political fight. we have called on the president to spare the country this fight. the best way to avoid the fight is to agree to let the people decide, give the people a voice. let the next president put forth the nomination. that's certainly what the people of wyoming want us to do. it's what i heard along with senator enzi on monday and what i heard as i traveled around the state of wyoming the past several weekends. i'll be back in wyoming this weekend and expect to hear the same thing as i travel to

president ronald reagan nominated judge robert bork to the supreme court in 1987. this was three years after his reelection and a year after the senate majority changed hands. here is how "the new york times" addressed the argument that elections have consequences. you can see it right on this chart -- quote -- "the president's supporters insist vehemently that having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the course direction. yes, but the democrats won the 1986 election regaining control of the senate, and they have every right to resist." unquote. the same circumstances obviously exist today. by the way, no one should waste time wondering if "the new york times" has applied the same principle today. it of course hasn't. in addition to 2012 and 2014, the 2016 election will have tremendous consequences for the american people and the courts. it will give the american people a unique opportunity to express their opinion about the direction of the courts by electing the president, the nominates and the senate that gives advice and consent. republ