. >> let's talk about roe v. wade. what is the holding of roe v. wade, in 30 seconds? [ laughter ] >> the holding of roe versus wade in 30 seconds, senator, is that a woman has a right to an abortion. it developed a trimester scheme in roe that specified when the state interests and when the women's interests tend to prevail. >> okay. so let me just break it down. the court said that there is a right to privacy, that the government can't interfere with that right in the first trimester. beyond the first trimester, the government has more interest as the baby develops, is that fair to say? >> that was the scheme set forth. >> i think medical viability was the test that the court used. >> well, that's the test that the court came around and applied in casey, in 1992. >> okay. >> and viability became more of the touchstone rather than a rigid -- >> is it fair to say that medical viability 1992 may be different than it is in 2022 medically? >> senator, i'm not a scientist or a doctor. >> i would suggest that medical viability may change as science progresses, so you may hav

the reality that the judge choice for trump was going to have to have a certain disposition on roe v. wadet least optically, was it incumbent upon judge gorsuch to offer up to the president his feelings about roe v. wade because of this assumption about his disposition? it will be interesting to see what he says. at the end of the day are you going to vote for him or are you going to test the 60-vote measure and see what happens? >> i can tell you this, today is another day of questioning and i think there will be some important issues will be raised but at the end of the day we each have to make a decision as to whether this man should have a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. it's not an easy call because it's the deciding vote in a 4-4 court. i'll withhold my final judgment until the hearings are over. >> what's your sense about whether or not you get the -- what do you need, eight democrats to come on? >> at this point i don't believe there are eight democrats supporting judge gorsuch but chuck schumer told us all wait until the hearings are over, let's do this professionally,

. >> let's talk about roe v. wade. what is the holding of roe v. wade in 30 seconds? the holding of roe versus wade in 30 seconds, senator, is that a woman has a right to an abortion. they developed a trimester scheme in roe that specified when the state interest and when the woman's interest tend to prevail. >> let me just break it down. the court said that there's a right to privacy, that the government can't interfere with that right in the first trimester. beyond the first trimester, the government has more interest as the baby develops. is that fair to say? >> that was the scheme set -- >> >> that's the test that the court came around and applied in casey in 1992. >> okay. >> so viability became more of the touchstone rather than a rigid -- >> is it fair to say that medical viability 1992 may be different than it is in 2022 medically? >> senator, i'm not a scientist or a doctor. >> i would suggest that medical viability may change as science progresses so you may have people coming in and saying in light of scientific medical changes, let's look at when medical vi

clarence thomas in his confirmation hearing in 1991 telling senator patrick leahy that even though roe v. wade decided when he was in law school, he neff talked about it, ne never formed an opinion about it. >> have you ever had discussion of roe v. wade other than in this room? in the 17 or 18 years it's been there? >> only i guess, senator, in the fact in the most general sense that other individuals expressed concerns one way or the other and you listen and you try to be thoughtful. if you're asking me whether or not i've ever debated the contents of it, the answer of that is, no, senator. >> have you ever, pretty gatherings or otherwise, stated whether you felt that it was properly decided or not? >> senator, in trying to recall and reflect on that, i don't recollect commenting one way or the other. there were, again, debates about it in various places but i generally did not participate. i don't remember or recall participating, sir. >> judging by pat leahy's follow-up question, he didn't actually believe that answer. that was the moment i decided clarence thomas was willing to say anythi

roe v. wadethat he be pro gun anti-violence measures and he be conservative. and let's recognize that he has outsourced this selection. >> you talk about delegating it. >> right. >> here's what you said. memo to trump, don't attack the courts. it's the constitution blocking your muslim ban. do you want to hear judge gorsuch on that tomorrow? is there any way around the fact that he can't comment on a pending case? >> he has to demonstrate for me and i think a lot of my colleagues an independence that will show that le nohe will not that litmus test and he will discard it. even if he can't comment on the immigration case, he has to show that he respects the principle that the government can't discriminate on the basis of religion that a muslim ban would violate the constitution. >> which honestly shouldn't be too hard to say. but i guess you never know. dahlia had a question. >> i'm wondering if, given that trump has expressly pledged that he seems to know that judge gorsuch is in it to win it, an

chairman of the judicieudiciary committee asked about his views on roe v. wades what he got back. >> roe vs. wade decided 1973. precedence of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed, reliance interests considerations are important there. and all the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. it is a precedence of the united states supreme court, reaffirmed in casey in 1992 and in several other cases. so a good judge will consider as press debts cedent of the unite supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. >> is that enough to convince a pro-choice senator this guy won't change roe v. wade? is that enough? >> if your litmus test is i need to know from you judge gorsuch that you won't overrue ruru rur, that is not enough. but that is a pretty darn good answer. >> pro-lifers won't like to hear that. >> pro-lifers will say to themselves -- >> this is a game. >> -- we know in his heart that he didn't like roe. we know from what he's written by oosthuizen neuthanasia,s ass suicide, that he has issues abou

and supportor roe v. wade has only grownnd even since this election because i think that folks in this country not only women, but women and men realize what is at stake. i think that's -- in fact, you no he, know if you ask people in this country, they may have their own feelings about abortion but this is a decision that they can't make that decision for every other woman. that's fundamentally what roe says this is a right of a woman to make her own decision. >> there is the rubber hitting the road in the hearings. some guests earlier pointed out that while legal junkies and politicos are interested in this, it is supremely important, you don't always learn a lot from the hearings. we have put together some sound. i want to play for you, you're familiar with, i imagine, of all of the different ways that it has been hard to get people to get answers on abortion or roe what we're talking about, whether you look at john roberts, who is still chief justice or o'connor, take a listen to this. >> i feel the need t

host: hey, carol -- caller: this roe v. wade issue -- host: let's go to stan from florida, republican line. hello. caller: hello. how are you doing today? host: fine, thank you. caller: i want to speak on this. name is stan hart and i'm a pentecostal minister and a christian of the gospel of jesus christ. now if we want to kill some more babies, let's support roe vs. wade which says there is no such name as a reform that was a lady seen on the some christian channels. she repented of her sins of this ungodly thing that roe vs. wade. she repepted of her sins, said she was sorry that she did this thing. o it's a sin to kill babies. host: stan, the caller had referenced the roe v. wade over her concerns about judge gorsuch coming to the court and possibly overturning that. what do you think about the nominee or do you think this should get revised again in the court? caller: i think this nominee should go in because donald rump was voted by the most christians in the world today that's ever been in history. host: when neil gorsuch

let's talk about roe v. wade. what is the holding of roe v. wade and 30 seconds? [laughter] >> the holding of roe v. wade in 30 seconds is that a woman has a right to an abortion. it develops a trimester scheme in row that specifies when the state enters and when the women's interests tend to prevail. >> let me break it down. the court says that there is a right to privacy, the government can't interfere with that right in the first trimester. be on the first trimester, the government has more interest as a baby develops, is that fair to say? >> that was the scheme forward. that was the test that the court came around and applied in kc in 1992. viability became more of the touchstone rather than a rigid -- >> is it fair to say that things in 1982 would be different and 2022? >> i'm not a senator or a docto doctor. >> you may have people coming in and saying in light of scientific changes, let's look at when medical viability occurs. that's one example of litigation that may come before you. i have legislation that says at 20 weeks, the unborn child is able to feel

and he interviewed you. >> he did. >> and you have testified here that there was no mention of roe v wade? >> senator, what i testified to is there was no request for me to commit on any case or controversy or anything that might come before me. >> was there any mention of roe v wade? >> there was. briefly. >> what did he say and what did you say? >> senator, the president recounted to me, among other things, how the campaign went in colorado. he knew i was from colorado. he was disappointed he had lost colorado. he said something like if he had had a little more time, he thinks he might have won. then he said that one of the topics that came up during the course of the campaign was abortion and that it was very divisive and split people evenly, he found. then he moved on to other topics. >> did he mention roe v wade by name? >> i don't think so. not to my recollection. just that abortion was very divisive and he moved on to other topics of interest to him. >> like what? >> senator, the next topic i remember, this is just my recollection, is he expressed concern that our country's nuclear

>> they'll say he's for corporations and against the little guy and he's going to repeal roe v. wadeh he didn't say he would repeal roe v. wade and come up with justifications because they're view of the court is different than that of conservatives. their view is are the outcomes and finding a legal reasoning to justify the outcome and judge gorsuch isn't giving them the answers they want so they'll oppose him. >> eric: he said his role model is byron white also from colorado, the first justice from his own state, gorsuch's state. the judges in the appellate court in denver named after him and he was a clerk for him and he was appointed in 1962 by j.f.k. and more of a conservative voice. do you think he could potentially play that role in the upcoming court? >> i hope he does. i hope he's a reliable conservative. in the last three decades the democrats have appointed four justices to the supreme court and every one of them has voted reliably for the liberal block. the republicans have appointed seven judge and half have gone to the other side so they're not even batting .500. we don

. >> roe v. wade, he was asked during the course of the questioning when he was interviewed by president trump for this nomination if president trump made that a litmus test and said how do you feel about roe v. wade and he said if he would have asked him that question, i would have walked out of the room. >> yeah, so much for litmus test. >> and sean spicer was asked about that whether the president still wants a litmus test for roe v. wade. >> i think the judge may have surprised people when he said he would have walked out of the room, but when you think about it it is the only answer he could have given consistent with his other answers which roe v. wade was precedent and he believes in judging on the laurlaw and that was a consistent answer he gave throughout the day. i think he got a little testy with senator durbin on the gender bias, he issued the question of maternity leave in the wrong way and got really testy when durbin began impugning him on that and you got to see the other side of the s

you have all these senators who have opinions on roe v. wade. sly someone who knows constitutional law like a supreme court nominee knows what they think about roe v. wade. somehow it's supposed to be a secret. it's just crazy, but that's what democratic and republican nominees have come to say in front of the judiciary committee and gorsuch followed in that tradition. >> it's perfectly appropriate to have judges about his actual opinions on abortion and to get him to explain his reasoning and the like. the problem is judge gorsuch has no history on abortion. it kind of gets surpassed or explaining past decisions. asking him to prejudge or explain how he would rule on a future case i think is entirely inappropriate. if he had done so, there would be calls for he recusal. >> i just don't buy that at all. i think these are intelligent people who thought about these issues. we should know what they think before they're appointed. i recognize that no nominee thinks what i think about this, but i just think it's crazy. >> he did seem very calm and sor

there will be issues everyone is listening for, whether it is roe v. wade, citizens united, gun case, religious freedom. he cannot comment on what he would do. you know, what would you do if this case came before you? so many issues, whether it is president obama's immigration orders, president trump's immigration orders. a lot of this stuff will be off the table. what we will be able to learn about is talking about his record, because he can talk about cases he has already decided and explain his reasoning. it is a window into how he approaches cases. that could be more important anyway. from the outside, we may think we know the issue inside out, but until you understand all the legal issues, we are prejudging, as well. so knowing how he will be approaching these cases will help us. host: ms. wydra? guest: she is right. we have kind of developed a fear of the judicial confirmation hearing where everyone asks these questions that we really want to and no -- want to know. and nominees give their best to not give us a substantive answer. that has been the fu

and he interviewed you. >> he did. >> and you have testified here that there was no mention of roe v wade? >> senator, what i testified to is there was no request for me to commit on any case or controversy or anything that might come before me. >> was there any mention of roe v wade? >> there was. briefly. >> what did he say and what did you say? >> senator, the president recounted to me, among other things, how the campaign went in colorado. he knew i was from colorado. he was disappointed he had lost colorado. he said something like if he had had a little more time, he thinks he might have won. then he said that one of the topics that came up during the course of the campaign was abortion and that it was very divisive and split people evenly, he found. then he moved on to other topics. >> did he mention roe v wade by name? >> i don't think so. not to my recollection. just that abortion was very divisive and he moved on to other topics of interest to him. >> like what? >> senator, the next topic i remember, this is just my recollection, is he expressed concern that our country's nuclear

take a listen to one interesting moment when judge gorsuch was asked about roe v. wade. >> roe v. wade decided in 1973, it was a precedent of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed, so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the supreme court worthy of treatment like any other. >> the only question i have about this is that i don't know if you read the book, but judge gorsuch wrote a book against assisted suicide. and while the book in no way specifically talks about abortion, i think it's fair to wonder, to read the book and wonder how much the moral arguments he makes about life perhaps could apply to that. for instance, he writes in favor of bans on assisted suicide and euthanasia, quote, on the basis that human life is fundamentally and inherently invaluable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong, unquote. i don't know if you read the book, like i said, but i wonder, not -- is it unfair to wonder if he might apply those moral views on life to his rulings if abortion were to come up? >> great and fair questions [ inaudi

roe v. wade turned 44 this year and the president has promised to nominate judges who would overturn "roe." "chevron" is 33 years old. i think this is a legitimate question. was mr. priebus suggesting that you go back and change 40 years of settled law or have an affect on the law moving forward? >> respectfully, senator, mr. priebus doesn't speak for me and i don't speak for him. i don't appreciate how people whsh when people characterize me as you don't appreciate it when people characterize you. i like to speak for myself. i am a judge. i am my own man. >> okay. i just want to just -- we've had some talk about this. i don't think we're crazy. to think that the administration and reince priebus -- i don't think he was lying. doesn't it -- doesn't it -- are you comfortable with your nomination being described in such transactional terms? >> senator, there's a lot about this process i'm uncomfortable with. a lot. but i'm not god. no one asked me to fix it. i'm here as a witness trying to faithful

fact that we were talking about one of the campaign promises donald trump made was to resraous roe v. wade are trending toward the legacy and what is presumed to be among some communities a muslim ban. the focus is tipped away from roe v. wade, and more towards the president will have enough deference from the courts that would make policies that would fridge on some of the policies, and gorsuch has been a staunch believer in religion, and hobby lobby, little sisters, all these cases involved whether or not the government could enforce these small businesses or business that had certain beliefs to have con tprtracepti as part of their plan, and he said absolutely not, and i think everybody is going to look at this and say i wonder how much his religious believes, not the k orders. >> and lastly, democrats are still feeling the sting from republicans not voting on merrick garland. >> i thithis was never a matter battle over legal qualifiations, and both should be steadfast lisa poertd in terms of the their qualifications. however, this is a battle of power. and the democrats will have to de

cases like shelby county, lily led bettor, hobby lobby, roe v. wade. he said he wanted a justice who, for example, would adhere to a broad view of the second amendment and who would overturn roe v. wade to quote him automatically. your article in 2005 made clear you know judicial philosophy matters. of course it does. that is why we're so focused on understanding your judicial philosophy in getting beyond platitudes about the judicial role that is why this confirmation process matters. this is serious business. that is why we still have questions. that is why i remained concerned. judge gorsuch, over and over again you have told us to focus on your whole record as a judge and not certain cases or certain of your writings and books or articles or e-mails. in fact, my republican colleagues suggest we are being unfair to try to look to those things to discern how you would approach cases if confirmed. some have even gone so far as to conflate the questions we are raising about your record in the course of our responsibilities with donald trump's abhorrent

today, what was striking to me is gorsuch maintaining his independence and saying, you know, on roe v. wadeen asked about -- about whether he would overturn roe v. wade by the president, that was a question that was raised to him, he said i would have walked out of the room. and he said -- >> president never asked him. >> the president never asked him but he -- at every moment, at every juncture he could today, he went out of his way to establish his complete independence from any administration including this one. >> the testimony yesterday, phil, involving director comey, admiral rogers from the national security agency, were you surprised how far they were willing to go and confirm that this criminal investigation of alleged links between trump associates from the campaign and russia, how far they went in publicly disclosing all of this? >> surprise? heck, yes. we went last summer where the fbi director came out on the e-mail investigation confirmed the investigation and then frankly was embarrassed -- >> involving hillary clinton. >> involving hillary clinton in the fall when he had to

madam president, i remember the days before roe v. wade very clearly. i have heard and seen firsthand the stories women faced with truly impossible choices during those times. women from all across the country have shared deeply personal experiences because they know what it would mean to go backwards. i know that millions of women who have already done so much to lead the resistance against this administration and its damaging, decisive agenda will fight this nomination as hard as they can. they know that the trump presidency will be damaging enough for four years, but judge gorsuch's -- nomination could roll back women's lives for a life time. i oppose judge gorsuch's nomination in light of everything that it would mean for women now and for generations to come. so, madam president, that's next week when we vote on that. today here in the senate we just saw a historic moment. the senate republicans put forth a resolution that would allow states to deny funding to providers in their states who provide health care services for women -- desperately neede

trump when interviewed for that judge. >> in that interview, did he ask you to overview roe v. wade. >> no, sir. >> what would you do if he asked that? >> senator, i would have walked out the door. >> reporter: and he did not say what he would do if the executive action on immigration reaches court. >> the republican congressman recently said the best thing the president can do for his muslim ban is to make sure he has gorsuch on the supreme court. >> senator, a lot of people say a lot of silly things. he has no idea how i would rule. >> reporter: though the questions were pointed, even the democrats found it hard to dislike neil gorsuch personally who remained unruffled and confident. nevertheless, senator al franken asked about a recent statement by the white house chief of staff. >> neil gorsuch represents a conservative, represents the type of judge that has the vision of donald trump. >> what do you think that mr. priebus was talking about? >> respectfully, mr. priebus doesn't speak for me and i don't speak for him. i am a judge, i am my own man. >> reporter: gorsuch was also a

promising he will nominate someone to overturn roe v. wade. we have to assume he has met the litmus test. >> are you prepared to filibuster? >> not only filibuster, but use every tool that we have if he is in fact out of the mainstream. >> but republicans are making clear they will do what it takes to get gorsuch on the high court even if that means changing senate rules to cut off the possibility of a filibuster. republicans are expected to raise gorsuch and play up the similarities of the man he is to replace. antonin scalia. the hearing is expected to last four days. republicans vote fhopefully nex month. >> they are very angry of the treatment of the candidate under president obama. >>> exciting week in general. we have healthcare reform. a top priority for president trump. meeting with house speaker paul ryan and tom price and the key architect of obamacare. they need to pass the repeal and replace bill. more than two dozen republicans, 26 i think is the number here, against the measure or leaning against the measure. that is enough to ki

cases like shelby county, lily led bettor, hobby lobby, roe v. wade. he said he wanted a justice who, for example, would adhere to a broad view of the second amendment and who would overturn roe v. wade to quote him automatically. your article in 2005 made clear you know judicial philosophy matters. of course it does. that is why we're so focused on understanding your judicial philosophy in getting beyond platitudes about the judicial role that is why this confirmation process matters. this is serious business. that is why we still have questions. that is why i remained concerned. judge gorsuch, over and over again you have told us to focus on your whole record as a judge and not certain cases or certain of your writings and books or articles or e-mails. in fact, my republican colleagues suggest we are being unfair to try to look to those things to discern how you would approach cases if confirmed. some have even gone so far as to conflate the questions we are raising about your record in the course of our responsibilities with donald trump's abhorrent

to me the most disturbing is the person would automatically overrule roe v. wadehen he or she gets on the court is nominated. that's the problem with litmus test insert the went to look at potential justices record, philosophy, the way he or she views the constitution is incredibly import and i would like to see more of wholesome answers given during hearings. it's important in this case we have the context of a president who said over and over have these litmus test. we want to know if this seems in private conversations they may not be quite as though they were eager to automatically overrule roe v. wade. we're in those two together is important. i would like to do hearing process get a little more into a judges philosophy on the const to shed because i have a lot of questions itself. a net connected to on judicial independence. for a president who values executive power, judge gorsuch is an interesting choice. a couple of things about his record digest in fact he will be independent of the exetive spirit when you see a seriously question the whole question. in

that most people are thinking about right now and the case that every nominee gets asked about, roe v. wade. can you tell me whether roe was decided correctly? >> again, i would tell you that roe v. wade decided in 1973 was a precedence of the united states supreme court. it has been reafirmed, reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. it is a precedent of the united states supreme court. it is reaffirmed in casey in 1992. and in several other cases. so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. >> what about griswold, which was decided a few years before roe, the case where the court found constitutional right to privacy. can you tell me your views on griswold? >> senator, it is a precedent that is now 50 years old, griswold involved the right of married couples to use contraceptive devices in the privacy of their own home. and it is 50 years old, the reliance interests are obvious, it has been repeatedly reaffi

board or roe v. wade, griswold v. connecticut. justice roberts and alito agreed. a section of the constitution that prohibits -- of foreign officials, instead of an umpire calling balls and strikes in baseball, what we saw was a well trained expert in dodge ball. my friends, the ranking member of the committee said it best, what worries me she told the nominee is that you have been very much able to avoid any specificity like no one i have ever seen before. let me repeat, there is no legal standard, rule or even logic for failing to answer questions that don't involve immediate and specific cases that are or could come before the court. it is evasion. just evasion, plan and simple. and it belies a deeper truth about this nominee. if anyone doubts that judge gorsuch doesn't have strong views, that thinks he would be a neutral judge calling balls and strikes as judge roberts once put it, just look at the way he was chosen. he was supported and pushed forward by the heritage foundation and federalist society and groomed by billionaire conservatives, president trump s

charles: adrianna, one of the things that we heard a lot of questioning revolving around the issue of roe v. wades a very contentious issue, something people thought we would never revisit. i'm not sure if we will, but if there ultimately are three donald trump appointees in the supreme court, it's a possibility. do you think that will be where the democrats make their, take their stand? >> i think they should. i think they should take a pass on blocking judge gorsuch given his stellar 20+ year record. as you know, he's highly rated by the aba, and the democrats unanimously put him into the 10th circuit. so you can't ask for a better supreme court judge. so they should hold their powder and if they use a filibuster, wait for another potential appointee who's more conservative that they have an issue with down the line, because as you mentioned, there could be at least two more open slots coming up with ruth bader ginsburg being 83 years old. she's got medical issues and justice kennedy he's up there in age. so they should know when to hold their power and fight -- powder, and fight when it confli

david: what about senator dianne feinstein asking if he referred to roe v. wade as super offensive?reg: he would not adopt that phrase, but it has been reaffirmed by the court multiple times. and he talked about you know, with all presidents and including rope, the reliance interest. it is a ruling that people come to depend on. states have allowed abortions to be legal. they have not tried to outlaw it in most cases. so he is not making any promises on that, but he is at least saying what he needs to say to sort of get past that hurdle of roe v. wade. david: and looking at the timetable going forward, i hadioned the ruling today more throughout this week, what will we hear from the chair? greg: he wants a committee vote by april 23, and that would be enough time for them to have a vote at the end of the week on the senate floor. if that happens and he gets confirmed, he could be on the supreme court in term for the last round of argument in the last two weeks of april. ,avid: all right, thank you greg. you can watch the hearings for jeff gorsuch -- neil gorsuch online at bloomberg.

the most disturbing is this person would automatically be willing to overrule roe v. wadehen he or she gets on the court if nominated. so that's the problem with litmus test the. and, certainly, you want to look at a potential justice's record, philosophy be, the way he or she uses the constitution, i think that's incredibly important, and i for one would like to see more fulsome answers give, this during hearings. i think it's particularly important in this case. we do want to know whether or not it seems in some private considerations judge gorsuch as indicated that he may not be quite as willing or automatically willing to overrule roe v. wade. is so squaring those two together, i think, is really important, and i would like to see the hearing process, frankly, get a little more into a judge's philosophies on the constitution, because i have a lot of questions about that as well. >> can i pick up more a moment on the question of judicial independence, because i do think for a president who, i think, values executive power, judge gore such is an interesting choice. and t

basically what roe v. wade did, this conservative five-member vermont supreme court in leahy versus beecham, leahy versus bartlett, these are the dark days that i want to go back to. i got a call from the police at 3:00 in the morning, state attorney at the time, i went to the emergency room at our local hospital, and a young coed nearly died from bleeding from a botched abortion. at that time it was illegal. we found out the person who procured them, had done this with a number of people. he then -- he would then blackmail them for either sex or money and when i brought it to trial, found the person doing the abortion was from montreal, they said they go to trial figuring she had never appeared to -- for the case. she was there. two royal canadian mounties escorted her. and i pointed out to the defense attorney the evidence will show she was trained to do these abortions, working for the ss at auschwitz so she could abort the women prisoners that they had impregnated so that they could keep on using the women

over the two-year period the president said his nominee must favor overturning roe v. wade and to deny women access to health care on the basis ofee religious freedom and upholding the decision of goods which the nra believes the state and locae governments from passing commonsense gun safety legislation. .. every american. donald trump's litmus test for supreme court nominees were crystal clear. in nominating you, judge gorsuch, i can only conclude that you met the presidents litmus tests. your ideological perspective, or as some would say here, your judicial philosophy on these issues matter because if you are confirmed, you will have a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. in our cozy meeting you said you have a heart -- courtesy -- so we need to know what is in your heart. we need to understand how you will grapple with the number of important questions the >> >> will the constitutional right to choose or will that at the end the goal u president to undo roe v. wade greg doorstop unfettered campaign spending ul allow corporations to hijack our democracy? will they

get roe v. wade put into the dustbin of history, get rid of the political process and move along from there. seen recent days we have some kind of question about deference to the judiciary, we started to see it during the campaign with the questioning of a federal judge willing to be impartial. we have continued to see those , roberts has said to carry on that legacy of not having martial law. where people actually listen to judges and do what they have to do even when they disagree. even in thisis, it situation where we have a purely a nominee,light over who was not even given a chance to have a hearing. now we have another nominee who is very different in so many publics, why should the trust, even if it is one step removed, even if he could be fair and impartial, why should the public trust the judiciary because of the way the politicians in using the judiciary branch? >> i think abstracting from the particular situation is because it adheres to the constitution. you have an inevitably political ,

what about the president's campaign promise to appoint anti-abortion justices that would overturn roe v. wade. >> had he ever asked you to overturn roe v. wade. >> no senator. i would have walked out the door. >> they say favor big business. >> if you juan cases where i ruled for the little guy as well as the big guy there's plenty of them. al franken questioning him for ruling in favor of a trucking company instead of a driver they fired for abandoning his cargo. >> it's absurd to say this company is in it's rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die by driving an unsafe vehicle. that's absurd. >> as you can see there members of the judiciary committee taking full advantage of the opportunity to try to get judge gorsuch on the record on some of the hot button legal issue of the day with limited success. questioning went on for ten hours and more is expected today. >> so the health care fight big deal. the president wants a big win. pushing the voechlt it's supposed to come to a head on thursday. what if they don't get

roe versus wade. >> did he ever ask you to overrule roe v. wade? >> no, senator. >> what would you have done if he'd asked? >> senator, i would have walked out the door. >> pressed gorsoon the legality of president >> anyone, any law is going to get a fair and square deal with me. >> that's about as testy as it got today. no major fireworks. no obvious flubs. >>> nasa will not face deep funding cuts under the next budget. today president trump signed a bill that gives nasa more than $19 billion to spend next year. the funding places an emphasis on deep space exploration. mr. trump signed that bill in the oval office surrounded by astronauts. >>> public broadcasting could take a budget hit and that concern brought these parents and children to public broadcasting entities. all of them going to capitol hill to have their voices heard. they plan to deliver boxes containing 660,000 petition signatures. president trump wants to corporation for public broadcasting which received $445 million this year. >>> arnold sha ming -- took to twitter to criticize

members of the senate judiciary committee from the line of questioning yesterday was the decision in roe v. wadethe abortion decision in this country. senator dianne feinstein asked judge gorsuch yesterday how he would deal with that decision and how he would deal with past precedent when it came to roe v. wade. >> in my opening remarks i indicated that if anything had ro dide indent, terms of the numbers and i put that in the record. here is why it becomes of concern. the president said he would appoint someone who would overturn it. you pointed out to me that you viewed precedent in a serious way in that it added stability to the law. could you elaborate on the point you made in my office? >> i would be delighted to, senator. part of the value of precedent, it has lots of value, it is value in and of itself because it is our history. it also has an instrumental value in this sense. it adds to the determinacy of law. we have lots of tools that allow to narrow the realm of admissible dispute between parties so that people can anticipate and organize their affairs. it is part of the reason why th

nominated him established a litmus test saying that he, his nominee would automatically overturn roe v wade, that he would strike down gun violence measures, he would be conservative, and, the president outsourced his selection process to the heritage foundation and two other similar hard right conservative groups that prepared lists for him, screened them, and advised him. the question is, who is behind these ads, because it is not only the judicial crisis network, and those groups, it is a network of conservative donors who are operating to buy american justice. let's be clear, president trump wasn't just consulting these outside groups. he was outsourcing the selection process, and we want to know who is providing the funds that, in effect are the critical resources to try to shape the outcome. if the american people and our colleagues have the sunlight shown on this money network, they will be better informed about whether judge gorsuch should be the next member of the united states supreme court. we are, i think united in this effort towards disclosure, and i think there will be others

does that run afoul of roe v. wade, i want to make the argument that that stage to have pregnancy to protect the child against death that is going to be excruciatingly painful, you don't have to say a word i'm just letting everybody know that if is this legislation passes it will be challenged before you and you will have to look at a new theory of how the state can protect the unborn. and here is what i think. you will read the briefs look at the facts and make a decision, am i fair to conclude that? >> senator, i can promise you no more than that and i guarantee you no less than that in every single case that comes before me. >> well, this is a real world situation that may develop overtime because 70% of american people side with me on the idea that 20 weeks we should not be in the club of seven nations that allow abortions on demand because that's in the fifth month and doesn't make us a better nation. there will be people on the other side saying no, that's an erosion of roe and will go to the court if it passes h

has previously indicated he wanted to appoint pro-life judges who would be willing to overturn roe v. wade though gorsuch said he would have walked out the door if he had this position. is the president still confident that gorsuch would be willing to overturn roe v. wade? >> i think both the federal side deem to be people who interpret the constitution as originalist, and i'm not going take the bait on a live hearing, but appreciate the comment. >> recently a 14-year-old girl was raped in the boy's bathroom of her high school. a 17 and 18-year-old boy have been charged one of the boys unlawfully entered the country, both out standing orders with i.c.e., does the president hear a story like that and think it should be changed in a future executive order? >> i think first, let me just say that this is a tragic event, horrendous, horrible and disgusting what this young woman in rockville went through. i can't possibly imagine, so first of all let's remember the human side of this that this is a tragic event that no child, no person, no parent should ever have to deal with. school should be a

reporter: on trump's promise as a candidate to appoint anti-abortion justices who would overturn roe v. wade. >> do you view roe as having super precedent? >> it has been reaffirmed many times. i can say that. yes. >> yes, dozens. >> reporter: gorsuch saying he has not revealed his intentions to the president. >> in that interview, did he ever ask you to overrule roe v. wade? >> no, senator. >> what would he have done if he had r asked? >> senator, i would have walked out the door. it's not what judges do. >> reporter: gorsuch also showing distance from the president on the reinstatement of torture. >> we have a convention against torture and implementing legislation which ban torture. >> does the president have the right to authorize torture if it violates the laws that have been passed by congress? >> senator, no man is above the law. >> reporter: meantime, democrats are seizing on some new allegations about gorsuch. >> no, senator, and i'd be delighted to actually clear this up. >> reporter: a former law student of his writing this letter to the senate judiciary, claiming gorsuch suggeste

senator lindsey graham asked of president trump -- if president trump asked neil gorsuch to overrule roe v. wadeen to that. >> had you ever met president trump personally? >> not until my interview. >> in that interview, did he ever ask you to overrule roe v. wade? >> no, senator. >> what would you have done if he asked? >> senator, i would have walked out the door. >> what do you think, deneen? do you think that will quell the fears of pro-choice protesters? >> i think in his response, the judge handled himself really well with the number of questions he was peppered with from all sides. and let me make a quick correction, i think i said legislate, i meant rule when i answered a question you asked me. judges should not legislate from the bench, so i stand corrected. liz: no, you're fine, i hear you, deneen. cathy, weigh in here? >> the democrats are still fearful and thinking garland, garland, garland, that's what on their minds. he sounds great. at the end of the day, no, the democrats are not happy with his answers, he's not making anyone happy. liz: appreciate you guys, back in a few, stay t

try to coax him into saying something about overturning roe v. wade, i'd assume. >> sure they will.s nothing specific this his record on the abortion question. he is a committed textualist and originalist and a handing of counselor, and i think that bodes well for those of us who believe that roe v. wade is an abomination that has distorted american politics for more than four decades now and needs to be reversed. but when they look at hisat record, they're not going to see anything that clearly signals thinking specific on that matter. paul: all right. you clerked for justice scalia, the late justice. tell us where judge gorsuch is replacing him, tell us where you think, one or two places, where you think, neil gorsuch would differ his jurisprudence from justice scalia? >> well, one area that judge gorsuch has highlighted is his skepticism of so-called chevron deference -- paul: that's the executive branch authority. >> right. this basically, chevron deference means that when, when a statute is ambiguous, the courts will defer to administrative agencies' interpretation of the statu

remember, we're talking about a well established long established precedent, roe v. wades that description, and that kind of out of the main stream thinking will cause media filibuster and every tool i have at my discretion to use. >> thanks so much, david for sticking around, you just heard senator blumenthal, for so many years, the senate refused to hold confirmation hearings for obama's supreme court pick. >> their anger is justified, it was unprecedented essentially to block the garland appointment for such a long time. that said, i must tell you, ana, that president trump has chosen a man in gorsuch who by all -- by the assessment of most people who have talked to him and studied his record is within the conservative main stream, he's not way out in the fringes, and he's well qualified for the post. he seems to be a humble man. and i think his rollout, it's probably one of the best day president trump has had was the rollout of the gorsuch nomination. so i think that unless there's some blockbuster information that hasn't yet come to light, judge gorsuch is going to

the big, hot button issues, religious liberty, voting rights, campaign finance, and the future of roe v. wadethese are questions where the court is divided 5-4. the long delay that led to the nonconfirmation of merit garland damaged matters. there's a danger that the court will appear to be political. i think she's -- chief justice roberts and chief gorsuch will be -- justice gorsuch will be attuned to that. soledad: jeffrey rosen, nice to see you. i'm looking forward to a wonky conversation. prof. rosen: it's going to be constitutional heaven. citizens should tune in. soledad: words never said before, "constitutional heaven." >> coming up, millions of americans in between jobs, afraid they will lose their health care. i'm goingtions are, to pay a lot of money for cobra, or i'm going to drop my coverage. >> what is stopping congress from cutting those costs? later, red state, blue state. how drawing the district lines on your map kills the balance of power. they broadcast of their bipartisan road trip on facebook live. >> we can disasasaeeable. >> what these -- during their 36-hour drive. ame

the big, hot button issues, religious liberty, voting rights, campaign finance, and the future of roe v. wadethese are questions where the court is divided 5-4. the long delay that led to the nonconfirmation of merit garland damaged matters. there's a danger that the court will appear to be political. i think she's -- chief justice roberts and chief gorsuch will be -- justice gorsuch will be attuned to that. soledad: jeffrey rosen, nice to see you. i'm looking forward to a wonky conversation. prof. rosen: it's going to be constitutional heaven. citizens should tune in. soledad: words never said before, "constitutional heaven." >> coming up, millions of americans in between jobs, afraid they will lose their health care. i'm goingtions are, to pay a lot of money for cobra, or i'm going to drop my coverage. >> wt spping congress from cutting those costs? later, red stateblue state. how drawing the district lines on your map kills the balance of power. they broadcast of their bipartisan road trip on facebook live. eeable. >> what these -- during their 36-hour drive. americanthe ahca, health care

eenator lindsey graham asked how gorsuch would have responded to he president asking him to t rturn roe v. wade. >> in that interview, did he ever ask you to overrule roe v. wade? >> no, sir. e> what would he do if he asked? >> senator, i would have walked out the door. not what judges do. i don't do it. ch that end of pennsylvania avenue, they shouldn't do it at this end either, respectfully. >> all right, there will still ee questions about hot button issues across the country, some legal experts believe gorsuch may turnout to be more conservative on some of those rtyues than the justice that le's replacing antonin describe a. ef the senate confirms his momination, gorsuch could be on the court early april in time the hear the appeal of president a-mp's travel ban. d also new at 11:00 right now, barry bonds is back with the -e nts, not in a uniform yet. taseball's all-time home run leader has been hired as a special advisor to president and ceo larry bayer. the teemt making that announcement hours ago. ae will join the squad for the lset of spring training and work with the minor league teams

california and new york, you did it with roe v. wade three years before abortion was made legal. it was legal in new york and california. that's one of the reasons we got roe v. wade. do it with single payer health care. thank you, chris. >> gavin newsome. >> resistance, blue states. >> he's running on that. michael moore, thank you for joining me tonight. >> thanks, chris. >>> still to come, congressman schiff on what he calls the dead-of-night excursions of his intelligence committee colleague devin nunes that threaten their investigation on trump/russia ties. more on this after this quick break. >>> today congressman adam schiff offered a stark accusation that president trump's determination to stand by his unfounded claims that his predecessor had him wiretapped has led president trump to interfere with the work of the house intelligence committee and its republican chair. >> now i think in an effort to further justify the unjustifiable, he's now interfeing in this investigation and i think the fact that the chairman's press conference was at the white house is not only symbol

v wade. >> do you view roe has having super precedent? >> it has been preaffirmed many times.eporter: gorsuch saying he has not revealed his intentions to the president. >> in that interview, did he ever ask you to overrule roe v. wade? >> no, senator. >> what would you have done if he asked? >> senator, i would have walked out the door. >> reporter: and gorsuch pushing back against democratic criticism that he rules in favor of big companies. >> i wasn't in the man's shoes. >> reporter: ruling against a trucker who was fired for abandoning his broken down trailer in freezing temperatures to look for safety. >> it is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dieing from feying to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. >> reporter: late in the day, gorsuch did display some uncharacteristic frustration at this whole process saying that there's a lot about the confirmation process that he regrets including butting his family through all this and lamenting that at one time albeit a long time