scalia is a pretty good guide on this. scalia would take the test and structure of the constitution wherever it led whether it produced a liberal or conservative result. he may common cause with libe l liberals on criminal sentencing, confrontation clause, sometimes a fourth amendment search cases because he thought that was what the text structure and history said. he never got any reciprocal sympathetic votes on other issues. then this whole notion scalia was imposing his own value because he was a judicial activist, which is a bit ironic because he is the author of this employment division versus smith which dramatically limited the protections of the free exercise clause by senator biden and a host of bipartisan senators erected the rifra to reenact the free exercise clauss that exi existed prior to scalia's views. i think what you will see out of gorsuch is somebody who asked the question, what does the law say, not what do i think the law should be and how will a court be perceived and all these other no non-textual

she referred several times to a scalia seat. there is nothing that says we need to have a scalia seat on the supreme court. nobody mentions felix frankfurter's seat, taft's seat, a kennedy seat. mr. hoping they will ask gorsuch about the citizens decision. i would like to remind ms. severino that the majority of the american people do not foot for donald trump, which means they did not vote for his nominee. if they go for four more years with eight justices on the supreme court, i think we will get along just fine. is news to everyone on the democrat side that was claiming we need nine ad nauseam last year. not a scalia seat. thanks for pointing that out. but we're talking about the fact that the person that will be replaced is justice scalia. the fact is that president trump did campaign on this idea of replacing scalia with someone in the same intellectual mode, and it is important to note that this will not change the balance of the court. i do think that is significant in the way this plays out. justice scalia was one of the

that's quite a jump and scalia says we're not going idly sit by. so you have a sense that the court was ready, scalia is ready to take on these open-ended delegations. and i think one thing the executive branch can do the help is when they that they threaten to veto any statute that's overly vague and follow through on that, there's no question that the congress has gotten amazingly sloppy, when i first started here practicing law, we would go to markup sessions, i would and be like trial fasts. nasty fights over the meaning of actual language. anmendment to third-degree? well i feel sorry to you too. it was common knowledge among my age group 30 years ago because that's part of the markup process. so i think that with this addition by judge gorsuch. weem see and the partnerships we can make on the court with the justices i've mentioned i think we'll see a lot more pressure put on the congress to do its job right. and on the courts to not be taken advantage ofagencies and exercising their proper role. thank you for the opportunity to speak. [ appla

justice scalia was a lion of the law. agree or disagree with him, all of the colleagues on the bench cherished his wisdom and humor. like them, i miss him. i began my legal career working for byron white, the last coloradan to serve on the supreme court and the only justice to lead the nfl in rushing. [laughter] judge gorsuch: he was one of the smartest and most courageous men i have ever known. when he retired, he gave me the chance to work for justice kennedy as well. justice kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious. he taught me so much. i'm forever grateful. if yave ever met jge sentel, you would know how lucky i was to land a clerkship with him out rit school. [laughter] judge gorsuch: thank you. these judges brought me up in the law. truly, i would not be here without them. today is as much of their day as it is mine. in the balance of my professional life, i have had the privilege of working as a practicing lawyer and teacher. i've enjoyed wonderful colleagues whose support means so much to me at this moment.

soledad: where does he stand in relation to scalia? prof.osen: some analysis has suggested he might be to the right of justice scalia on certain questions, especially involving government regulation and the president's power to regulate the environment or the economy, but in other areas, judge gorsuch might be more likely than justice scalia to check president trump. one area where they were both pro-individual right is fourth amendment searches and seizures engage invernment mass data analysis? can it grab our iphones? both justice scalia and justice gorsuch have said, no, not without good reason. engage in mass data analysis? can it grab our iphones? that's one example of how their approach to the constitution can favor individual rights. soledad: if he strictly construes limits on federal and presidential power, how do you assess how he might think about orsidential tweeting presidential executive orders? [laughter] i know you laugh, but i think it is not irrelevant. prof. rosen: it's not irrelevant at all. the question of what he would t

, justice scalia was unique. his wit and style brought the constitution to life, for lawyers in their first year of law school and for the american public at-large. he led the most important legal revolution in our lifetimes, tethering judicial interpretation to the written text. what a concept. this is part of the broader project, which the nominee before us, judge neil gorsuch described as, quote, reminding us of the differences between judges and legislators. judges should strive to apply the law as it is, not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions for the policies, consequences they feel might serve society best. in one dissent, justice kolya rode along similar lines but if our pronouncement of constitutional law rely primarily on value judgments, then a free and intelligent people's attitude towards us can be expected to be quite different. people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school and perhaps better. the framers, i believe, shared justice goliad

soledad: where does he stand in relation to scalia? prof.osen: some analysis has suggested he might be to the right of justice scalia on certain questions, especially involving government regulation and the president's power to regulate the environment or the economy, but in other areas, judge gorsuch might be more likely than justice scalia to check president trump. one area where they were both pro-individual rights is fourth amendment searches and seizures engage invernment mass data analysis? can it grab our iphones? both justice scalia and justice gorsuch have said, no, not without good reason. engage in mass data analysis? can it grab our iphones? that's one example of how their approach to the constitution can favor individual rights. soledad: if he strictly construes limits on federal and presidential power, how do you assess how he might think about orsidential tweeting presidential executive orders? [laughter] i know you laugh, but i think it is not irrelevant. prof. rosen: it's not irrelevant at all. the question of what he would

he doesn't write like scalia.writes very carefully. >> he's clear and careful and tries not to insult anybody. even in those forgettable affirm man affirmances, he takes care to name and describe the claims rather than just issuing some broiler plate because everyone before him deserves respect. >> paul? >> i certainly agree that he is a very nice guy, he's put together an admiral body of work and many great things to be said about judge gorsuch. concerns about giving him the ninth vote on the supreme court and one is the originalism and what is means for lgbt rights, like the rights to choose, and the other is what happens to our democracy, voting suppression and those things. i think there's real reason to push very hard on him and see whether or not he really cares, for example, about using the constitution and understanding the constitution the way that would promote democracy rather than to continue to dismantle billionaires from dominating the system. we're going to be facing a number of cases about voter i.

scalia had 98-096-3. what happened between now and then, how did we go from understanding scalia is well-qualified, recognized elections today. here is how we hope we go back to where we were to restore the judiciary over time. >> welcome, judge, and everything on the judiciary looking forward to -- welcome to your family as well. no committee has greater responsibility than the one before us today. our laws and values depend on a supreme court that is impartial, fair and just, your nomination, during an unprecedented time in history. we are witnessing a singular moment of constitutional and democratic unease. in recent months foundational elements of our democracy including rule of law have been questioned, challenged and undermined. i cannot -- i must look at your views and record in the real world of america today. you come before us this afternoon not only is a nominee sitting at a table alone with friends and family behind you but in the context of the era in which we live. from the highest level of

as we've heard before, justice scalia was unique. his wit and style brought the constitution to life for lawyers in the first year of law school and for the american people at large. he let the most important legal revolution in our lifetime, tethering judicial interpretation to the written text.o what a concept. this is part of the broader project which a nominee beforehi us described as reminding us of the differences between judges and legislatures. judges should strive to applyde the law as it is, not to decide cases based on their own moral conviction or the policies and consequences they feel might serve society best.ro in one dissent justice scalia wrote along similar lines that if our pronouncements of constitutional law rely primarily on value judgments then a free and intelligent people attitude can be expected to be quite different. the people know their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school and perhaps better. bette the framers shared justice scalia and your modest view of the role of judging

>> i think could be a change on the court. >> excuse me, from scalia. >> scalia to gorsuch. no, not at all. there is differences in the lack of agency decisions, that's the chevron decision that we are hearing about, and he may be more liberal in his willingness to check the president and the last exchange about first amendment rights was interesting. justice scalia was a first amendment defender, it soun sunds like judge gorsuch is as well. >> i was going to ask you about that. i suppose there is difference between the two men. scalia was justifiably proud of his decisions on the first amendment. jeffrey, anything else that sticks out to you from the gorsuch testimony so far before we get into the late afternoon session? >> there was one word that came up a lot and surprised me aed lo. and that was quality. judge gorsuch began by saying the words before the supreme court equal justice under law are the most radical promise of the constitution. and defending himself about the campaign finance and immigration decisions he said we have to treat large and small companies and do

you and justice scalia. that is part of the importance to give to collegiality and you talk about the way in which your colleagues and the court are very click wheel -- collegial with each other. happily expand hat to a more public discourse? >> when i was growing up, the first branch is very different than it is today. that persisted act until 1903 when president clinton nominated me to do the job i now hold, i had been general counsel to the american civil liberties union for several years. the vote was 96-3 in my favor. my biggest supporter on the judiciary committee was senator biden. -- was not the then chair senator biden, although he was certainly in my favor, but it was senator orrin hatch. i don't think he would touch me with a 10 foot pole today. we are still friends, but if it came to a vote on me, i don't hink he would be the support that he was in 1993. and stephen breyer, when he was nominated the next year, it was well into the 90's. they voted in his favor. it is not been that way for the mos

>> justice scalia was a line of the law. agree or disagree with him, all of his colleagues on the bench cherished his wisdom and his humor. and like them, i miss him. amy: supreme court confirmation hearings again today for neil gorsuch. we will look at his record, what it means for workers, women, and voting rights. plus, we look back at his time as the student activist when he criticized anti-apartheid protesters at columbia university. then we go to vermont where the immigrant community has been shaken after ice detained three prominent immigrant rights activists, including a member of the state attorney general's immigration task force. >> when i was detained, they stood up for me in the mobilized the community to fight for my freedom. and i was freed. so now i am here to fight for of these men because they deserve their freedom, too. amy: and recent spike in casualties in u.s. airstrikes abroad and nearly 49. in syria with the u.s. struck a mosque and iraq u.s. air sex continue in mosul. often coast of yemen, saudi arab

because this is antonin scalia a four antonin scalia up. it is another scalia. replacing a conservative with a conservative, heart argument, and the argument for liberal groups entering the hearings this is thes that only one to focus on. let's not strategize. let's not talk ourselves out of going to the mat on this. by saying, what happens if mcconnell goes nuclear and gets rid of the filibuster. they feel they are in it to win it. who knows what comes up. who knows if it is a smoking gun. who knows what questions cannot at the hearings. who knows if democrats will not wrong,g -- i'm saying is who knows if they won't get the filibuster out of the democratic party? that if they did the opposite and preserve the filibuster and you get to a situation down the road where it replacing --trump mcconnell could get rid of the filibuster than if you can't get 60 votes so the same thing would happen. they might as well go to the mat this time. this is the c-span audience, they know capitol hill ready well. but what with the applications be -- nan aron implicated that if

when he was first nominated, he praised antonin scalia a >> justice scalia was the line of the law. agree or disagree with him, all of his colleagues on the bench chairs his wisdom and his humor. and like them, i miss him. amy: as a judge on the tenth circuit, gorsuch ruled in favor of hobby lobby in the case deciding whether the company should -- could refuse to provide birth control coverage to employees as required by obamacare. judge gorsuch also has a long history of ruling against employees in cases involving federal race, sex, age, disability and political , discrimination and retaliation claims. gorsuch is a member of the federalist society and has close ties to conservative colorado billionaire philip anschutz who owns "the weekly standard" and " the washington examiner." gorsuch also comes from a deeply conservative family. his mother, anne gorsuch burford, briefly served as president reagan's epa administrator, where she slashed staff and eviscerated anti-pollution regulations before resigning amidst scandal. we begin our coverage of george best search -- judge gorsuch wi

>> president donald trump selected neil gorsuch, a judge on the 10th to fill the vacancy left by scalia's passing last year. established himself as a thoughtful jurist who pays attention to the meaning of laws and the constitution. he has an impressive judicial record, sterling academic credentials and years of government service including clerking for justice anthony kennedy but what kind of judge is judge gorsuch? we'll hear from former law clerks today but first, his former law partner and boss quoted as saying gorsuch was born with silver hair and inexhaustible store of winston churchill quotes. mark hanson is from kellogg hanson. with more than 30 years of experience, mark is the lead trial counsel representing prominent clients such as the u.s. government, the kingdom of saudi arabia and then general electric and verizon. tried more than 30 cases to verdict and argued more than 20 appeals. mark previously served as assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york and law clerk to judge william timbers at the second circuit court of appeals and a graduate of dartmouth an

and particularly because i had the privilege to clerk for justice scalia, whose seat this is. it's meaningful to me to know that the person who's going to take justice scalia's seat on the court is not just a conservative in his tradition but also a good man. i do want to say something quickly about his jurisprudence too because he's been compared in the last few months to justice scalia in lots of ways. maybe not in what we might call the vociferousness of his descent. i don't think you could look forward to the same biting descent of neil gorsuch as what we used to read from justice scalia. but you could expect a similar approach to the law. you know, textualism when it comes to statutes and originalism, history, and rigorous attention to the law when it comes to the constitution. if anyone remembers when they were in, like, grade school having to diagram sentences. there's a sentence diagram in the opinion and actually makes it very clear. you want to know like, which word does this phrase modify and i'll show you, right? it illustrates a really deep commitment to the thing

, justice scalia was unique. his wit and style brought the constitution to life, for lawyers in their first year of law school and for the american public at-large. he led the most important legal revolution in our lifetimes, tethering judicial interpretation to the written text. what a concept. this is part of the broader project, which the nominee before us, judge neil gorsuch described as, quote, reminding us of the differences between judges and legislators. judges should strive to apply the law as it is, not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions for the policies, consequences they feel might serve society best. in one dissent, justice kolya rode along similar lines but if our pronouncement of constitutional law rely primarily on value judgments, then a free and intelligent people's attitude towards us can be expected to be quite different. people know that their value judgments are quite as good as those taught in any law school and perhaps better. the framers, i belie, shared justice goli and

gorsuch was personally close to justice scalia.a speech last year at case western reserve, he spoke of being on the ski slopes when he learned of scalia's death. >> i immediately lost what breath i had left. and i'm not embarrassed to admit that i couldn't see the rest of the way down the mountain through the tears. >> brown: he added this of their shared judicial philosophy. >> as justice scalia put it, 'if you're going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going to like the conclusions you reach. if you like them all the time, you're probably doing something wrong." >> brown: conservatives and business groups like what they see. but liberals see a different picture-- one in which gorsuch could fall on the court's far right end of the spectrum. >> you know it really doesn't matter whether he's a genial person or a great guy to go skiing with. i'm sure all of those things are true. but what really matters is his record and whether he can be the independent justice that we re

for scalia. it is another scalia. replacing a conservative with a conservative. her argument and the argument , for liberal groups entering the hearings this month is that this is the only one to focus on. let's not strategize. let's not talk ourselves out of going to the mat on this. by saying what happens if leader mcconnell goes nuclear and gets rid of the filibuster. then what would happen the next time, etc. they feel they are in it to win it. who knows what comes up. who knows if it is a smoking gun. who knows what questions cannot -- will be of the hearings. who knows if 8 democrats will not go along -- i'm saying is wrong, who knows if they won't get the filibuster out of the democratic party? they will just go to the mat. the truth is that if they did the opposite and preserve the filibuster and you get to a situation down the road where it it is president trump replacing a ginsburg or a briar or a mcconnell could get rid of the filibuster than if you can't get 60 votes. the same thing w

president trump and others have said you are the next scalia. so i think it's only fair to ask you, do you disagree with any of the mairjority opinions that jue scalia joined in these cases? if so, which ones do you especially disagree with, and why? these have already been decided. >> i understand, senator. again, if i indicate my agreement or disagreement with a past precedent of the united states supreme court, i'm doing two things that worry me sitting here. the first thing i'm doing is singling to future litigants that i can't be a fair judge in their case because those issues keep coming up. all of these issues, as you point out, keep coming up. issues around all of these precedents will continue to be litigated. i've had post ledbetter act cases in my court. >> how do we have confidence in you that you won't just be for the big corporations, that you will be for the little man? this is the question that senator horono asked so well yesterday. those of us, i think, on both sides care very much about workers' rights. but the record is such

he's been compared in the last few months to justice scalia in lots of ways.be not in what you might call the vociferousness of his defense. i don't think you can look forward to quite the same kind of biting dissent from neil gorsuch as we used to enjoy reading from justice scalia. but what i do think you can expect is a similar approach to the law. textualism when it comes to constitutes, and originalism, history and rigorous attention to the law when it comes to the constitution. if anyone remembers when they were in, like, grade school or high school, having to diagram sentences. there is a published opinion of the judge explaining the meaning of a federal statute by putting a sentence diagram in the opinion. it makes it very clear. you want to know which word does this phrase modify? i'll show you. [laughter] it illustrates a really deep commitment to the things that, for me, it's important to say justice scalia kind of taught us all. after he died, everyone took a moment to notice how much justice scalia had changed the way lawyers and judges talk and th

president trump and others have said you are the next scalia. so i think it is only fair to ask you, do you disagree with any of the majority opinions that judge scalia joined in these cases? if so, which ones do you especially disagree with and why? these have already been decided. >> i understand, senator. but, again, if i indicate my agreement or disagreement with a past precedent of the united states supreme court, i'm doing two things that worry me. sitting here. first thing i'm doing is i'm signaling the future litigants that i can't be a fair judge in their case because those issues keep coming up, all of these issues as you point out keep coming up. issues around all of these precedents will be continued to be litigated and are hotly litigated. i had post ledbetter cases in my court, for example. >> how do we have confidence in you that you won't be just for the big corporations? that you will be for the little men? this is the question that senator hirono, i think, so well asked yesterday. you know, those of us, i think on both sides, c

senator, i admired justice scalia greatly but his words are his words and mine are mine. i would ask you respectfully to judge me based on my dreencredes and my record. justice scalia's legacy will live on a lot longer than mine, i'm sure. >> i understand that. but it was good to hear you wouldn't have said that but i found that frustrating because it wasn't the answer to my question. here despite a unanimous senate vote in support of the voting rights act and a 15,000 page legislative record demonstrating that there was a significant debate over the bill, justice scalia question congress' motives in deciding to support the bill. it seems to me that he is substituting his own personal views for the facts in the record. do you agree a willingness to engage in this kind of speculation could be perceived as judicial activism? >> senator, respectfully, i just don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the work of my superiors or justice scalia's words at oral argument or any other justice's comments at oral argument. >> i think that it's important, this issue of judici

, a judge on the 10th circuit court of appeals to fill the supreme court vacancy left by justice scalia's passing last year. judge gorsuch has spent the last ten years writing countless opinions and establishing himself as a thoughtful jurist who pays close attention to the text and original public meanings of laws and the constitution. he has an impressive judicial record, sterling academic credentials, and years of government service, including clerking for justice anthony kennedy, but what kind of colleague, friend, and boss is judge gorsuch? we'll hear from a panel of his former law clerks today, but first his former law partner and boss who's reported as saying gorsuch was born with silver hair and winston churchill quotes. with more than 30 years of experience, mark has been the lead trial counsel in cases across the country, representing prominent clients such as the u.s. government, kingdom of saudi arabia, large corporations, including general electric and verizon. he's tried more than 30 cases to verdict and argued more than 20 appeals. mark previously served as an assistant u.s

you spoke of justice scalia's legacy.tice scalia you explained emphasizes the difference between judges and legislators and reminded us legislators may appeal to their own morale conviction and social utility to shape the laws they think should be in the future and judges should do none of these things in a democratic society, end quote. i think that accurately describes justice scalia's view. is that also your own view? >> senator, it is though i have to confess that lecture was attended by 20 people and got more attention since. >> we're making sure it gets some more. in your opinions on the appeals court you take great care to identify what issues the court may or may not address and one opinion last year for example you used phrases such as it's not our job, end quote and quote, it simply isn't our business, end quote. what is an appellate court's job in your view? >> a limited vital role in our separated powers. a judge is there to make sure that ever person poor or rich, mighty or meek gets equal protection of the l

president trump has said you are the next scalia. i think it's only fair to ask you do you disagree with any of the majority opinions that judge scalia joined in these cases. if so, which ones do you especially disagree with and why? these have already been decided. >> i understand, senator, but again if i indicate my agreement or disagreement with the past precedent of theins supreme court i'm doing two things that worry me sitting here. the first thing i'm doing is i'm signaling to future litigants that i can't be a fair judge in their case because those issues keep coming up. all of these issues as you point out keep coming pup issues around all of these precedents will continue to be litigated and are hotly litigated. >> then how do we have confidence in you that you won't just be for thing about corporations, that you will be for the little men? this is the question that senator hirono i think so well asked yesterday. you know, those of us i think on both sides care very much about workers' rights. but the record is such that on

senator, i admired justice scalia greatly but his words are his words and mine are mine. i would ask you respectfully to judge me based on my dreencredes and my record. justice scalia's legacy will live on a lot longer than mine, i'm sure. >> i understand that. but it was good to hear you wouldn't have said that but i found that frustrating because it wasn't the answer to my question. here despite a unanimous senate vote in support of the voting rights act and a 15,000 page legislative record demonstrating that there was a significant debate over the bill, justice scalia question congress' motives in deciding to support the bill. it seems to me that he is substituting his own personal views for the facts in the record. do you agree a willingness to engage in this kind of speculation could be perceived as judicial activism? >> senator, respectfully, i just don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the work of my superiors or justice scalia's words at oral argument or any other justice's comments at oral argument. >> i think that it's important, this issue of judici

donald trump promised he would nominate a judge in the mold of justice scalia. hillary clinton, on the other hand, promised a very different kind of justice. she promised a liberal judicial activist who would vote to undermine free speech, to undermine religious liberty and to undermine the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. this election was, a referendum on the supreme court. that has no precedent. the degree to which the voters knew precisely what they were getting, and what i would suggest to you as the overwhelming election results in november as the american people chose the direction, it gives this nomination a super legitimacy. it's not simply the president's choice but it is the president's choice that has been ratified by the american people voting in a national election where they were choosing, do they want a liberal judicial activists or do they want a principled, originalist on the court who will protect free speech, protect religious liberty and protect the second amendment? that nomination was ratified by the american people, and

it's another scalia, and we could debate to what extent neil gorsuch is scalia or not. but replacing a conservative with a conservative. her argument and i think the argument of the liberal groups is this is the only one to focus on. let's not start to strategize, talk ourselves out of going to the mat on this by saying, ooh what happens if leader mcconnell goes nuclear and gets rid of the filibuster, and then what would happen the next time et cetera et cetera? they feel they're in it to win it. who knows what will come up. who knows whether there's a smoking gun. who knows what the questioning will be at the hearings. who knows whether eight democrats will not go along with say -- who knows whether they won't get the filibuster out of the democratic party? so, you know, they're just going to go to the mat. the truth is, if they did the opposite and preserved the filibuster and you get to a situation down the road where it's president trump or republican president replacing a ginsburg or a briar or a kennedy, mcconnell can get rid of the filibuster then if he can't get

to enga we are considering a nominee and as we heard before, justice scalia was unique. the style of the constitution was brought to life, the lawyers in first year in law school and for the american public at large he led the most important legal preparation of our lifetimes with the interpretation to thern written text. what a concept. this is part of the broader project with the nominee before, us. it reminded us of theri differences between the judges and legislators to strive to apply the law as it is and notot to decide the case of the consequences that might serve the society best. if the pronouncements of the constitutional law relied primarily on the value judgment of the free and intelligent attitude can be expected to be quite different. people know they are not quite as good as those taught in any law school and perhaps better. the framers i believe share the modest view of the role of judgment. alexander hamilton wrote it would be neither force orwell judgment. after justice scalia's death, senate republicans decided to let the american people in this last p

he's a graduate of law school and a former law clerk to justice scalia. and to his right is caroline fredrickson, president of the american constitution society. she's a graduate of columbia law school and works at the aclu. and then christine lucias who is a graduate of georgetown law and has served most recently, yet it -- yay! as chief counsel of the the judiciary committee working for senator patrick lahey in a variety of counsel roles and in that capacity, we will quiz her, she was actively involved in the confirmation processes for half of the current occupants of the court. and it is an even number. next down the line is ed whelan, who is president of the ethics and public policy center, a must read blogger at the national review onlines blog. he's a graduate of harvard law school and a former law clerk to justice scalia. and finally the president of the constitutional accountability center, elizabeth wydra. what i'd like to do here is not have the traditional kind of panel where people give little ten-minute speeches, but to have more of it intera

scalia didn't think you should be sentences if it wasn't decided by the jury. the judge shouldn't give extra sentences. perhaps not as conservative in some areas. one place where he may make a difference, what we think of as antonin scalia today, the fully formed scalia was a man of strong opinions, not necessarily a persuader of the court. he staked his position and dared other people to join him. the other judges who talk about neil gorsuch say he, perhaps, is more of a somebody who can build coalitions. he could be more influential as a conservative than scalia was in terms of aractinvotes. >> pete willia, whose counsel we are going to seek early and often throughout the day. thank you very much. we have been told from the folks at the white house, the president has departed the white house on his way to capitol hill where i believe we have live cameras outside where i'm just being told now this is his motorcade arriving on capitol hill. remember, he goes inside and suddenly, there are -- here come the two limousines, the one carrying the president and the d

, does he have a scalia- like legal philosophy? >> i would say yes. i spoke on a panel last week about him and i think one of the main things he shares with justice scalia is a commitment to separation of powers and a vision of how our contusion operates. they each have their role, the three, and that is clearly shared by neil gorsuch. >> negotiate will call him a judicial activists? >> right. it doesn't mean the justice sits back and does nothing. the justice may see a law in violation of the contusion and, you know, the particular amendments or provisions of the contusion that are enumerated in the actual text of the contusion. the other things he shares with scalia is textualism. >> do you foresee neil gorsuchbecoming the leader down the road, that neil gorsuch would be the leader of a majority conservative court? >> it's hard to say always to predict how somebody is going to be on the court, how they will get along with the other justices. scalia got along well with his colleagues, including his more liberal colleagues, but fro

i think that accurately describes justice scalia of's -- justice scalia's view.is that also your own view? judge gorsuch: senator, it is, although i have to confess, that lecture was attended by about 20 people and it has gotten a lot more attention since. sen. hatch: well, we're making sure it gets some more. in your opinions on the appeals court, you take great care to identified what issues the court may or may not address. in one opinion last year, for example, used phrases such as, "it is not our job," and "it is something not our business." what is an appellate court's job, interview? -- in your view? judge gorsuch: it is a limited but vital role in our separated powers. a judge is there to make sure poor or rich,son, gets equaleek, protection in the locket it is chiseled -- in the law. it is chiseled in the supreme e,urt entrance in marbl although i believe the lincoln memorial is made of colorado marble. that is a promise that every person is protected by our laws equally. in all of human history that made it the most radical promise in all of law. what i

he is a lot like juste scalia. instances,umerous happy to talk about some of them, in which judge gorsuch ruled against the government in s in waysindividual that might not have been his preferred outcome. >> you mention we should not have a litmus test. both presidential candidates had a litmus test for the supreme court. it was a pretty stunning moment for me. normally, members say there is no litmus test. i am wondering what you think about the fact that candidate trump and president trump has said he has a litmus test. >> this may just reflect our different titles and jobs. coming at this from the perspective of a private practice lawyer, i think we need nine justices on the court. we need nine justices on the court in large part because many many of the cases that are decided by the court that i litigate are not ones that would rise to the radar screen of anybody in the senate and when i say we, i guess i mean i. i'm looking for someone who can do law and that to me is my litmus test. i think that if you do th

charlie: does he remind you of scalia in any way? emily: temperamentally, no.hey are quite a contrast. scalia was provocative off in on the bench and gorsuch is gentle. -- seems very tempered, compose, has a gentle air about him. in terms of their view of the law and there quite strict views quite strict views of interpreting the constitution. i think there is a resemblance. charlie: how does he resemble justice jackson? emily: he would argue that he believes in judicial restraint or modesty, which means he won't , as a supreme court justice, go out and grabbed the keys used to decide if they are not right in front of him. and it is true that as an appellate judge, he has looked at narrow grounds. if he follows that path, it would illustrate the kind of judicial restraint he talks about. charlie: justice white was another hero. emily: a former football hero. that is a rarity on the supreme court. safe pastvery justices for gorsuch to compare him to -- himself to. they are not highly conservative, but on the conservative side of the ledger. what you have are tou

justice scalia was a self-proclaimed textualist. he was an appointee of ronald reagan and widely praised from conservatives. after scalia's death, president obama nominated judge garland to full that side but republicans wouldn't hold a hearing for judge garland. during the campaign, donald trump vowed to appoint judges in the mold of justice scalia. after nomination, president trump said he was delivering on that promise. mike emanuel, what do the democrats have to say about judge gorsuch about today's hear something. >> we talk about how judge gorsuch was confirmed with the unanimous vote to serve on the tenth circuit court of appeals. democrats mentioned several times that judge garland was nominated by president obama. the stakes are higher this time around. >> supreme court is different. security is -- supreme court is the ultimate sort of justice in this country. >> sandra: . >> as much as you encountsered difficulty ten years ago, we now have a record and we're here to judge that record. >> a lot of mentions of judge garland

as you referred, this was the scalia seat. since when does a supreme court justice own a seat after he's passed? at which point do we say that the court needs to have a new person to replace the one who's passed and not determine that should be a cookie cutter placement. that's not how the process works. i wonder if justice kennedy retires january 2nd of 2020, will we now say that's it? sorry, that's for the american public to decide. we're not filling that seat. that's not how it's been done in the past. i would say would you commit to that? >> i'm happy to answer that and i think there's been a lot of misunderstanding of the senate republican position last year, which again was dictated by the configuration of a republican-held senate and a democratic president. so, no, if there -- if there is a vacancy in the next election year with a republican senate and a republican president, the clear response from me would be get moving. >> so we don't lose sight of the actual nominee, i'm going to pivot away from garland, although cl

yet the kilo case, the majority opinion, 5-4 was written by justice scalia. the leading originalist on the court. it was joined by justice thomas. indeed justice stephens dissented in that case. so i think that case illustrates that any judge doing his or her job a thorough understanding of the original understanding of the language is essential to effectively doing their job. would you share your thoughts about how the constitution intersects with modern technology? how a 200-plus-year-old document can possibly be applied in a world of internet and technology and changing reality? >> well, just use the discussions we've been having. you go back and you look to the evidence of what it was understood at the time to protect. of course madison didn't know about thermal images or gps tracking devices or dna. or e-mail. no one is looking to take us back to the horse and buggy day or quill pens or to turn back the clock on anything. the point is to apply the law in a way that allows us to be able to say as judges, it's not what we wish. it's what the law was unders

what will happen to the law without justice scalia to weave in it? unfortunately the person has appointed a jurist who believes in the law.uc learning about his judicial philosophy i was impressed by his respect for the law and his commitment to serve -- service. in particular struck by his recognition of quote it is foror congress not the courts to write new law and a justice should make decisions based on what the law demands not an outcome he or she desires. as we discussed in my office you said when you done that lack rope talking about you understand you're not a legislator. that is important but it was brought up before that one of my colleagues said judge gorsuch is pro-business or against the little guy could it think thet record suggests a basically applies the law as enacted byss, congress. good judges don't decide cases based on how big the guy is but based on the law and the facts. i am not alone in thinking that. harv harvard law professor noah feldman is self-described liberal quote siding with workers against employers isn't a jurist p

as you referred, this was the scalia seat.ince when does a supreme court justice own a seat after he's passed? at which point do we say that the court these to have a new -- these of to have a new person -- need to have a new person replace the one who's passed? i wonder why when justice thurgood marshall left the cows court, clarence thomas was actually his replacement. i wish we'd had a marshall seat -- [laughter] be we didn't. because that's not how the process works. if justice kennedy retires january 2nd of 2020, will we now say, oops, that's it? sorry, that's for the american public to decide? we're not filling that seat? that's just not how it's been done in the past. but i ask you, i would say would you commit to that? >> i'm happy to answer that, and i think there's been a lot of misunderstanding to the senate republican position last year which, again, was dictated by a republican senate and democratic president -- >> since the 1900s. >> if there is a vacancy in the next election year with a republican senate and a r