conservative justice antonin scalia died 2017. president obama picked a centrist nominee to succeed him, merrick garland was described by everybody as a centrist and a moderate. he was even described by senator orrin hatch as the kind of person who would be seen as a consensus nominee, a 100-vote nominee. somebody who even republicans could not have any conceivable objection to. but even though the nominee was merrick garland, republicans nevertheless decided to do something completely without precedent. they decided that they would hold scalia's seat open for well over a year. they refused to meet with the nominee. they refused to hold a hearing, refused to hold a vote or consider or discuss any nomination, even merrick garland's nomination, specifically because they said president obama should not be allowed to name a justice to the court. no nominee, no matter who it was. not while president obama was still in office. have to wait until after the election. new rule. now had that not happened, had merrick garland been appointed

because president trump was very so licitous frankly of maureen scalia, the widow of justice scalia, and in fact invited her to the rollout of neal xwil gor back in 2017 when he introduced him to the world. there in the room was maureen scalia. so he was very much in touch with sort of the legacy of justice scalia there and i'm wondering if the legacy of anthony kennedy from kennedy's point of view could influence him. but i still think whoever we get will be to the right of justice kennedy. >> i was wondering, jeff toobin, bouncing off of joan's point, how much of justice kennedy sitting at the white house today and who knows what exactly they talked about. according to the reports he said here are some people who i think would be great for the job. how much of really any i guess exiting justice and current president, how much of what he or she may say is really considered? >> zero. nothing. polite conversation. pleasing t. the entire trump presidency has been about pleasing the base. the last thing they want, they hated justice kennedy, they hated him because he saved row versus wa

i want to blame scalia for all this. back in kwan, scalia basically, and the concur nls that would sound like a dissent at some points, he chastised his colleagues for not taking on the technology of the day. and sort of deciding each case on the very narrow specific basises without thinking of the strong constitutional jurisprudence and the law going forward, but it's funny when the court finally decided to take on this sort of post-internet, this post-internet era case of jones, jones being the gps case. not even five minutes, i went back and looked at the timer. not even five minutes into the oral argument, what does scalia do? he basically says, listen, i know i'm supposed to be talking, but i'm really going to talk about cats. he said i think this is wrongly decided. but it's okay. don't worry about it. we're not going to overrule it today. however. and that struck me, particularly because it seemed to be out of nowhere, this attack. >> you want to give 30 seconds on what part of the holding you're talking about? >>

you end with went with us carrying a jackson and scalia. of all of the figures that you had covered. the one who could have known about all of the others. would you say they have the mess -- the most kinship or is there some other figure that they would've found most inspiring. i was just going to mention that i was in his chambers once. is that the predecessor that you most admire. he said no. he was a terrible man. maybe have an opinion. his favorite predecessor. he have a lot in common. good humor and modesty. there are some talks. on the big radio show on the left. it's probably not true. they came into the country in the advanced age. in the two founders i have. you find a lot to celebrate in the american legal system. can you talk a little bit about the darker side of the american legal system. trial lawyers who shakedown legitimate companies. if someone calls you joe we know that they had known them for a really long time. here i did. there is a lot of darkness in our history. and that's in the book also. it's not like a sappy book.

this means that the next justice to come in likely to be in the scalia mold and we know with scalia and gorsuch and thomas, these cases will be seen as john justice rble. that means the next case after the punt, the north carolina partisan gerrymandering case, they could have taken that for next term but didn't. that's where north carolina, 50-50 state after the lines were found to be racial gerrymander, the north carolina general assembly drew the lines again in a 50-50 state they made 10 of 13 districts majority republican. when asked why he did that, he said he couldn't figure out tow thou draw an 11th republican district. that's the punt. not even the loss. the losses came in a case about voter purges. huff set versus philip a. randolph institute and a case out of texas involving texas redistricting, both of these cases feature the 5-4 liberal -- 5-4, conservative-liberal split. one featured a nasty back and forth between justices alito and sotomayor. both of these cases are cases where you see the conservative majority pulling back on voting rights. the ohio cases are technical inv

this means the next justice to come in is likely to be in the scalia road. and likely roberts which these cases will be -- that means the next case coming up with a course the pontiff to the punt the court will take that for next term and take it, that's where north carolina 5050 state after the lines worse found to be a racial gerrymander in a 5050 state they made ten of 13 districts majority republicans. when asked why they said because they couldn't pay -- this is what is coming. that is one of the cases. that's not even the law. the lawsuits came in one case out of ohio involving voter purchase. the case out of testatrix called paris versus abbott. both cases featured a 5 - 4 republican appointed. if they both featured a nasty back and forth between justices alito and soto moyer. they're now taken the lead. both of these cases are cases where you see the conservative majority pulling back on voting rights. their technical but the message seems to be, give states their breathing room to pass laws that might make it harder to register and vote. the texas r

scalia likeeo -- chevron, we went judges to decide all these things. you should defer to the executive agencies. the right has really changed on that, particularly when obama was president. they did not like the ferry to the obama administration. judges should decide this, not agency bureaucrats. i think that is one. the other is the case of decided at the fcc. administration's briefs for interesting. they want to push the idea that these people are presidential appointees subject to removal by the president. we don't want judges who are just there on merit. they wanted the court to say they are subject to removal at the political. there is sort of one officer will know of in that situation, a guy named mueller who was appointed under regulation that is a good cause for removal. i think that is another area. they decided they case very narrowly but i think they will push on the idea of saying we want more political control and political accountability in the agencies. >> [indiscernible] breyer wrote in a certain i'll and death penalty -- cert denial in

this issue first came to the supreme court when justice scalia was still on the bench. the court heard argument in it, went back in its private conference, decided it -- apparently, 5-4 -- to strike down the rules and limit the power of unions. but then scalia died before the decision was released, and under supreme court procedures, that vote does not count. so the final decision came out 4-4 with no precedent, a split decision. and the moment neil neil gorsucs confirmed to the supreme court, this case was brought right into the court to get it before the justices very quickly. >> host: the book is called "we the corporations: how american businesses won their civil rights." adam winkler is the author, and bob is in overland park, kansas. you're on booktv, bob. >> caller: hi, peter. hi, adam. i wish i was at usc with you all. i used to live in california in san jose, and there was a humorous bit that appeared in the newspaper one day. there was a fellow who was pulled over for driving in the commuter lane, and he was -- as a single passenger. he contended that he had a

here, what do you think of the -- what i think of as a compromise put forth by justices kennedy, scalia, souter, and o'connor in lerner, called to our attention specifically by the brief of professor freed and professor post? does that solve most of your problem for any side? those are the three. you see? stare decisis, even if it weren't there, how do you distinguish all the other unions, particularly those in regulated industries, and, three, what about the compromise? mr. messenger: yes. so, to address your questions in order, justice breyer, on the first point, abood is not only inconsistent with cases that came after it, it was inconsistent with cases that came before it, such as elrod. even the dissent in elrod, justice powell would have applied exacting first amendment scrutiny to patronage. so abood wasn't just a departure or isn't just inconsistent with prior precedent or -- sorry, subsequent precedents, but with the precedents that came before it. so this would not necessarily be solely applying a new doctrine to abood but applying what the law was even prior to abood. with th

scalia was the same thing, a hard edge, heart conservative, et's overturn. kennedy was a different person. he was a conservative guy. he came up in the reagan administration when reagan was governor. he's a catholic, conservative, pro-court, but he had none of that passion that says i'm going to, and sweep aside the 1960's and 1970's and overturn. he was much more of a temperamental moderate, status civil rights decisions, quo conservative. here are not a lot of moderate republicans left in washington. that's what we are losing, the last of the sort of moderate republicans. the really great likelihood is the trump administration is not going to seek out a moderate republican of the anthony ennedy mold. they are going to seek out somebody who is a much more committed conservative and much more willing to go back and say these earlier decisions were wrong. roe is certainly in that category and we got to the constitution right and overturn them, so i think that is where they are headed. arthur: is anyone willing to hazard a guess? if they do that, will they los

he offer that opinion over the vigorous dissent of chief justice roberts and justice scalia and in a 1995 case of particular interest to those of us here at the cato institute us term limits justice kennedy cast the deciding vote to that ended the grassroots effort to have congress last insulated from political accountability. there is no way to appropriately count for in one volume for more than 1700 cases on which justice kennedy has cast a vote and professor knowles has not taken on so herculean eight path. rather she's focused on kennedy decision concerning speech, it will protection and personal liberty and has from them drawn a sympathetic, but not uncritical portrait of a justice wrestling with great issues of the day in the context of the constitution and the timeless issues of moral, political and legal theory all by way of drawing out the modest libertarianism that she finds as the thread in justice kennedy's opinions. for our program today professor knowles will discuss her book for about 30 minutes or so after which we will have comments from one of her mentors at boston

without kennedy on the court, , gaya justice like scalia marriage would not be legal.s of trump and russia, this is another topic you are following closely. mp's putin meeting will cover a broad range of issues and pence says that, if russia -- pence is not say if russia w imea fore to cede cr a g-8 return. >> he would not say if they should have to give up crimea. the previous administration would not have said that. the previous administration would have said that giving back and thes the first step print is administration would have required several other things before they would have considered letting vladimir putin back into the group of developed nations. joining us. for interesting,'s from mike pence after an interesting discussion of a day here in the united states on the supreme court. thank you for joining us in washington. you can watch us live and see past interviews on our interactive television function, tv go. you can also become part of the conversation i sending us instant messages during our shows and we love to hear from you. this is for bloomberg s

justice antonin scalia, a towering figure on the supreme court up there with oliver wendell holmes in the annals of supreme court history of the united states always used to say you're not a good judge of occasionally you don't reach a conclusion you don't like and the reason for that is the law requires it. or the constitution requires it. if you want to make policy you want to run for office so the kind of people the president is considering for circuit courts, the nomination of neil gorsuch, these are people who don't believe the job of the judges to act like a member of congress but to interpret the law which is what the founding fathers clearly had in mind for the judicial branch. shannon: it is stunning when we remember justice kennedy was confirmed by the senate 97-0. hard to imagine anything near that happening these days. you will have opposition from the democrats but what about complications on the gop side, the current absence of sen. mccain, very ill, and what are your concerns? >> we hope there will be democratic support. neil gorsuch got three senate democrats who suppo

. >> reporter: in 2016 when justice antonin scalia died suddenly, it was mcconnell who blocked a vote on barack obama nominee merrick garland until after the presidential election. >> he never had the opportunity for a hearing, let alone a vote. so the senate republicans successfully kept that seat vacant. and it was a gamble that paid off. >> reporter: and then he orchestrated a change in senate rules, the so-called nuclear option, to get president trump's pick, neil gorsuch, confirmed with a simple majority vote after democrats triggered that move. >> the democrats shot themselves in the foot. they were the people who argued for eliminating the filibuster on justices. and they got their way. and the bottom line is that all that a nominee will need is 50 votes. plus the vice president. and that nominee will win. >> reporter: those 50 votes could come a number of ways, with 51 republicans in the senate. all eyes are on the conservatives who have voted against the party line sometimes. and those democrats who defied their party too when they voted for gorsuch. >> we will begin our sear

last year, he picked justice neil gorsuch to replace conservative antonin scalia, a lateral change. kennedy, appointed by president reagan became a moderate conservative siding with conservatives but also on gay rights andbortion rights. >> if you get somebody much more in clinced inclined to a conservative jurisprudencet might shift back the other direct rn. orter: republicans urging a qui confirmation. >> we will vote for his successor this fall. >> reporter: democrats not in such a rush. >> this is the most important supreme court vacancy for this coun ay in at least

like scalia dumping on him, sometimes scalia did question him.ld say he was -- what's the right word? capricious. what do you make of how he was able to bib as a conservative without being the kind of conservative that mike pence likeses? >> frankly i think the loss of kennedy is a loss of grace. he was a bridge justice that had a unique voice. his voice was most profound when he was talking about individual rights for those of us with libertarian tendencies he was the truest voice in that answer. he showed you can have a conservative view of the of constitution and still defend individual rights. he tooking that from jon stewart mills and other philosophers from the 18th and 19th century. he believed in the concept of liberty and that within the constitution embodied a protection of individual dignity and self-expression. and when he spoke to those interests, i think you really heard the true voice of anthony kennedy. it was transcendent in a way his other opinions perhaps were not. he also wrote other opinions that were incredibly historical an

justice scalia was a very funny man.cked her up. >> reporter: her tenure on the bench not without controversy. breaking tradition for a justice, bader ginsburg spoke out against then-candidate donald trump, including to the "new york times." >> i think there's pretty broad agreement that justice ginsburg made comments that were ill advised about then-candidate trump. >> reporter: on a closely divided court in the midst of this controversial presidency, even though she's 85, she's not showing any signs of showing down. >> she announced her clerks for next year. and her clerks for the year after. maybe she's getting tired of people asking her, when are you going to resign, when are you going to resign? >> her answer is, she'll keep doing the job until she feels she can't do it full steam. >>> next, this couple taking their walk down a different kind of aisle. man: it takes a lot of work to run this business, but i really love it. i'm on the move all day long, and sometimes i don't eat the way i should. so i drink boost to

had that not happened and pointed to fill that open seat after scalia died, today would be an important day with anthony kennedy but it wouldn't not be anywhere near the consequential cross roads. the weight this moment and the weight is because of what they did to president obama. he did it without any hesitance or shame and they just declared new rule, this president isn't going to get to name a new justice. nope. no nominees considered until after the election. that is how we got to this moment. as of today, democrats have a decision to make. and republicans do too. everybody in this country who has a senator has a decision to make on this too. it is simple. democrats, presumably, are not in this circumstance, the door mats that republicans want them to be. democrats know what happenedthe. democrats know what happened to them. democrats know what happened to president observe, having lost a democratic supported nominee, presumably, democrats realized they should not ratify it by going back to regular orderer and let the republicans have this next one too. if the justification from bl

just justice scalia asked a lot of questions for a junior justice. overheard but got when justice powell let the bench, after one oral argument he said do you suppose he knows the rest of us are here? [laughter] i understand. the one thing i wanted to, it is interesting to me that there have been so many fewer chief justices of the united states than there have been presidents. of 17. one that's a very small number. that's a very high office. ofh office has a way occupants andhe restricting their freedom of movement. you, yourring if obligations to be an institutionalist and to lead the dissentead you not to it wass where you if just up to your individual druthers you might wish to write a dissent or to write a separate opinion because it may lead the court in a more splintered off fractured stage. do you feel that the weight of the office circumscribes your freedom in a way that an associate justice does not face? justice roberts: that is an interesting question. i thought about it because i was originally nominated to be an associate justice to tak

. >> so, by that measure scalia was not the most influential justice. her was in a lot of the five-justice majority us. but he didn't write them. often they were written by others. he was quite senior for a long time so you would think why get those opinions assigned to him, except that chief justice either rhenquist or roberts maybe didn't think he would be able to hold on to five? >> i'm sorry. >> so, i think he either was what we was trying to say or how he he was trying to say it that didn't let him get to five. the way to measure influence is looking at who i this swing justice, the one whose vote is the fifth vote required and that ties into why scalia didn't write a lot of these opinions because in order to get o'connor or souter or kennedy on board you have to write something that will appeal to them and as he said about his lack of compromise, he was not going to compromise what he thought was right to get the vote. are in conventional measure hes he was not influential but he was very influential but through his share force of writing and meth

i was sad when i saw scalia pass away but what about or stitcher?wonder if it is made difference what you ask jack phillips who was just vindicated by the supreme court earlier this week. [applause] i thought the supreme court spoke loud and clear and it was in the 5-4 decision. listen to what justice gorget - gorsuch's said. the constitution protects not just popular religious exercises for the civil authority to protect the mall. when i look back that was a smart move. we have appointed more judges. we need more that believe in the constitution not somebody who's going to reinterpret the constitution. [applause] steve and i and the congress worked closely together. but you know what i'm really proud of is the most pro-life congress we have ever had. [applause] with the trump administration it's only gotten stronger. the majority believe or i believe in the mission ensuring pro-life legislation. already we have passed 20 week abortion bans and just last month the department of health and human services announced a proposal to strip title x funding

out.nt it to come my favorite saying from justice scalia isn't your not a very good judge if you are occasionally disappointed in the outcome you reach. because it was dictated by the law. run, if you want to make policy, run for office. a simple declaratory point. scaliarers of justice are all over the country now. we have been seeing them as the president sends up circuit judges. beenthat we have confirming in record numbers. since the creation of the modern circuit court system, one step that the supreme court, system is set up in 1891. no president since 1891 has had more circuit judges confirmed the donald trump last year. no president. [applause] sen. mcconnell: now, we are up to 21 and let me put the 21 figure in context. 18 of the circuit /8th of the circuit judges confirmed in a year and a half. we are transforming the court system of this country. [applause] now, we have a pretty slim majority in the senate. 51-49 and is most of you know, senator mccain has not been essence december. one of the biggest things i have to do is check attendance. everybody feeling ok? edwin hav

> so given he is now stepping down, how different is this from the scenario when gorsuch replaced scaliabecause it was a conservative replacing a conservative. now we have a swing vote stepping down. how moment us ous is for what happens next on the supreme court? >> it is very momentous. in anyone's estimation the next justice is likely to move the courtn o the right oa number of issues, and the chief justice ell emerge as a swing vn quite a few cases. it will become the roberts court people refer to because he will be at the center of it, literally as chief justice but also often as the swingvote. >> let's not suggest gorsuch and scalia wereor tit tat. so we already have had some right ward drift o the court and this next nominee will send the court further to the right. much to watch in the months to come. professor melissa a murray also attorney josh patashnic. thanks to you both. nk >> t you. >> on tuesday primary elections were held in five states including new york.re the veteran democrat crowley suffered a stunning defeat to 28-year-old cortez. a forme organizers for bernie sande

by nominating a jurist in the tradition of justice scalia or thomas, trump can ensure the majority fornother generation adheres to the proper article three rule our framers intended. >> you don't make the law, to decide who ought to win. we decide who wins under the law that the people have adopted. very often if you are a good judge, you don't really like the result you are reaching. you would rather the other side had won. seems to you a foolish law, but in this job, it is garbage in, garbage out. it's a foolish law, you're bound by oath to produce a foolish result because it's not your job to decide what is foolish and what isn't. it's the job of the people across the street. >> laura: makes me sad. i miss him. for too long, the court cases have strayed from simple statutory and constitutional interpretation in order to advance a liberal social agenda. what do they do when they do that? they usurp -- this self-government with a purpose, as ronald reagan called it. where the goal is to preserve individual liberty. consider 45 years ago roe vs. wade where the court found the mythical

unlike the death of justice scalia which was totally unexpected by everyone.i think that mcconnell is on good grounds here to say that a nonelection year is totally different than a presidential election year in terms of how you handle supreme court vacanc vacancy. >> harris: i want to ask you because when her name was floated in president obama was there, democrats do not feel it was too close to an election point. what is different now? >> the difference is that senator mcconnell change the rules of the senate, change the practices of the senate to block president obama's legitimate nomination of merrick garland. so now they're trying to hoist leader mcconnell by his own petard. the more important thing is that this nomination be given the thorough and careful consideration that it deserves. this is a lifetime appointment on the supreme court. it's not a white house staff position where the person could be gone in five months or two weeks. they're going to be on the court for a lifetime. so the american people deserve to have the senate give this a careful t

that all of them are in the vein of a justice scalia, thomas, or gorsuch. >> i think president trump has a great list with great candidates on it. it's going to be a winnowing process and i'm confident we will end up with someone who's outstanding. >> laura: bread capital. -- brett cavanaugh. clerked for justice kennedy. >> judge cavanaugh has distinguished himself on the d.c. circuit, has written brilliant opinions on a broad range of questions. he clearly meets the mark. >> laura: matt schlapp, a lot of people on the list. >> i worked with brett for four years. he would be fantastic. >> laura: you hear from the left. his another white male guy from the georgetown prep. you can already hear the left. they check off the box and say you can't nominate another white man. we need a diverse court. it is the jelly bean approach. >> we need to see 50 votes, and these democrats running in these red states, they have got to support the supreme court nominee or they are in big political trouble. >> laura: speaking of which, kamala harris went into total fearmongering mode today. let's watch.

he wants somebody like justice scalia, like neil gorsuch proved in his first year, who is not going toe the wrong way on some issues the way justice kennedy has in the past. heather: he ended up being the swing vote even though he was brought in by reagan, and now it is 4-4. very important, who donald trump brings in, implications for generations. >> the supreme court, and great decisions, holding up the travel ban, a 5-4 decision in the union case with a 5-4 decision and the fifth vote justice kennedy represented. jillian: what are the chances that the vote is confirmed in october before the midterms. >> they don't want to 4-4 court with major cases. elena kagan was nominated by pres. obama in 2010, and we are going to hear quickly from the president who he wants and i guarantee they will try to get her conferment before the october terms. heather: midterm election versus presidential election, very big difference. thank you very much, we will see what happens today because you never know. thank you. the time is 18 after the top of the hour, the huge upset everyone is talking about in

nominated in 2016 after justice scalia died.ut republicans refused to hold a hearing or vote on hill. and that led to a new president and a new nominee, neil gorsuch. mitch mcdonnell posted this picture of him and gorsuch shaking hands. joining me now, mike shields and bakari sellers. the president certainly got a victory with this court ruling. there's been complaints that democrats in congress are nothing but obstructionists. there is some irony here, though, that the only reason trump was able to nominate gorsuch is about mitch mcconnell obstructed. >> well, president obama was fond of saying elections have consequences when he would do things that republicans didn't like. what is interesting about that is he ignored that elections had consequences if the midterm. because the 2014 midterm elected majority to the senate and they blocked him. put on the ballot for the 2016 election. and the democrats lost. it was on the ballot. and the american people support what the supreme court did today by about 60%. to 65%. i will say, th

justice scalia, as consenting adults, justice scalia said it was a right to homosexual sodomy.t decision was decided by four justices. decided, i believe it 1986. i remember where i was when it was decided. michael is another that will break your heart. he talks about how and that time, he was the perfect case, because it was in his bedroom with an expired or invalid consensuallly adult and he was willing to be openly gay. was takinghere that your life into your own hands. he suffered for it and he had to move to florida. he dies having not seen that case overturned. he dies playing 67 pounds as an aids victim. it will break your heart. people like -- did i say michael bowers, i meant to say michael hardwick. michael bowers is the bad guy. he was the attorney general of florida. we have come a long way from powers of the hardwick -- from hardwick and has been overturned, it is one of those issues where for decades, centuries people have been andted as not fully human rise up and say, yes i am. i am protected. this means me. culminating in the case being celebrated here. says th

he voted with thomas, not even scalia. >> i think the next five or ten years you will be very surprised at how neil gorsuch votes. i'm not saying he's not a so-called conservative as some people define the term. he sees his job as looking at a statute and looking at the constitution and trying to discern what congress or in the case of the constitution, our founders and ratifiers and people who voted for the bill of rights meant. he's not the sort of person who is going to make policy on his own. that doesn't mean supreme court justices don't make policy. >> they just did it. >> of course. they do it within the confines and in the context of a particular case. if you want to be a free-roaming policymaker, you shouldn't aspire to be a federal judge. run for the senate of the house or president of the united states. that's the kind of justice i'm looking for. whip smart, understands the role of the court. is not a hater. will call it like he sees it. calling the balls and strikes as justice roberts said. that's the kind of judge i think judge kennedy was. that's who i'm looking for >> jud

th divided 4-4 after the death of justice scalia. it was justice gorsuch who made the difference this time. >> woodruff: after watching him on the court for this term, what are we to hke of and how he makes decisions and the difference he's going to mak going forward? >> going into the term, you know, he'd only sat through one set ofases and i think issued one opinion last term because he joined the court very late and, going in, to the new teorp murmurings that perhaps some of the justic thought might be getting too big for his britches, but of the 15 5-4 cases, he wrote five including a major arbitration gued on the very first day in the term, and the the senior justice in the majority decides who's going to write the cases. so there were rumors of discontent but you didn't see them in the opinion assignment process. druff: what did you see? the other thing i would say about him is, during his confirmation process, he said he was an originalist and a tex textualist and i would say this rm he adhered close to that. whenever he had a

he approached each case by natalie -- each case pragmatically, where a professor like justice scaliay predictable coming on the court, or a justice like pryor or kagan, academics who are much more predictable. but they are lacking that particular experience. david: you said this has been a largely pro-business court. what issues are left that business would like to make a difference on in the supreme court? >> in addition to preemption to eliminate a lot of state regulation and in addition to the big issue, which will be helpful to business, which is cutting back on the scope of power, iegulatory think punitive damages is an issue the court hasn't addressed. on behalf of my law firm, i argued the exxon punitive damages case. that was a case under federal maritime law. it was a tough case to win. got a $5 billion punitive judgment reduced to $5 million. that court seems relatively friendly to it. but there are some states rights -- in a states case, justice scalia would have said that the court has no business setting aside what states do. on punitive damages, this is whether a states

he was similar enough to scalia. was democrats were not happy about the merrick garland situation, at least once scalia passed the idea was that he was essentially being replaced. you will not be restoring the court to a status quo with this next pick at all. that's why it will be a more controversial choice. >> mike murphy, before we let you go, i want to get you in on that possibility, too. you know this republican party well. you know the divide in this republican party, especially with sort of the establishment folks, for lack of a better term, in washington. could you see some resistance there from a susan collins, from a mccain, from somebody who a trump pick here? >> well, think republicans generally -- i think this would reflect most of the senate members -- look for a conservative judge with a pragmatic streak. video v wa roe v. wade a good case study from pragmatic legal interpretation. i would be surprised if they buck, unless the president nominates somebody who is outside what they think the mainstream c

after justice gorsuch and justice scalia.er of the senate judiciary committee. steve: when you were 7 years old i remember. brian: that's so interesting the way you describe your brother. i describe my brother as a yankee fan. [laughter] brian: a little bit different. senator, i have got to ask you in the big picture right now, there is a lot of people out there moderate, independent, or democrat who would say goodbye same sex marriage and goodbye roe v. wade. you are a legal scholar. should they be worried. >> well, look, all of those issues involve cases that have been decided previously by the supreme court. it's one thing for them to assume that a republican appointee might come at those issues from a different world view as a matter of first impression. they have to take into account the doctrine of stare decisis which is a doctrine which generally puts the supreme court on ath path following precedent. so, they can't know for sure how any one of those issues is going to turn out and whether any one of those cases might

from the world of sport and doc to say two huge mistakes by live if we're going to keep a lot of scalia's in the champions league final defeat to riyadh madrid could have been the result of a concussion which impaired his vision the german was caught on the head by a captain said joe ramos just minutes before his first bond which allowed the spaniards to take the lead in european soccer showpiece last month he made another era a three one victory he was distraught to afterwards and underwent medical checks last week in boston. based. in an unprecedented move that u.s. president dollar trump is disinvited the current super bowl champions the philadelphia eagles from their plant visit to the white house several n.f.l. players have refused to stand for the national anthem against in a protest of a civil rights sparking their take a new movement in a state when trump said the eagles disagree with their president who was adamant as should stand for the national anthem the eagles wanted to send a smaller delegation to the white house but the president said. you're watching the news coming to yo

doctors say two huge mistakes by liverpool go and keep a lot of scalia's in their champions league final defeat to be out of madrid could have been the result of a concussion rich imbed his vision the gentleman was caught in the head by riad captain said g'day ramos just minutes before his first donda which allowed the spaniards to take the lead in european soccer as showpiece last month he later made another error which gave a three one victory he was distraught after ronson underwent medical checks last week in boston where liverpool's awareness based. that's it for now from me under that you might do still the good news because business news is coming up monica jones is standing by she'll have all the business headlines for you to stay with us if you get. the german scheme to gather information from china minute to chancellor all telephone business on. the history of the germans has been shaped by great rulers. by swell for ways to bring my royal power to vastly protect christendom.

principles that the supreme court vindicated you see a record ago long as justice alito and justice scalia was on justice and liberty in particular. leland: your respect for both men certainly comes through as we watch on screen left some of the these immigration rallies. looking forward and we combine these were the interview that president trump is having, where does he look on immigration? what are the immigration issues that could be coming before the court that the new justice will have to decide on? >> you know, if by any chance president trump is watching i would encourage him to look at an opinion judge cavanaugh wrote whether undocumented workers should be allowed to vote in the union elections. judge cavanaugh said they should not be allowed to vote. on issue after issue, 300 times out of 300 times, every opinion that judge cavanaugh has written suggests a strong kind of fighting for the constitution and for conservative principles. leland: justin, we sure appreciate you being with us and sharing your insights, certainly, as had go on before president trump's pick and maybe after

we stabbed justice scalia, but was also a very unusual justice. he had interesting perspectives, in the constitution. when he passed away, we appointed neil, and are viewers probably remember the brouhaha, when it was given to neil. that pay dividends for mitch mcconnell, and the trump administration, because neil has been very active in writing decisions, and voting consistently with conservatives. >> you bring up what happened, last time we had someone who is going to be appointed to the supreme court, your prediction on moving forward, this is going to be up to mitch mcconnell, to get this vote to happen, before the november election. >> the game right now is a game of timing, to anticipate what will happen in november -- the hope for the democrat side, is that they will stall as much as possible, before getting to the primaries. this will be a major issue in the midterms. >> thank you so much, we always appreciate you being here. >> turning to the immigration debate now, the house rejected the compromise immigration bill. no democrat voted in

one was justice o'connor, kennedy, scalia. two were centrist the. they were moderates. if he wants to make sure that they cobble together all the possible votes, you know, is there going to be a libertarian streak? >> john, you're talking about -- you call it a dystopia. this is what they want. this is not dystopia to them. >> a vision where gay couples can't get hotel rooms is dystopian. those are the mistakes, perhaps, but i don't think it is complete. >> you have an entire political party that says religious people don't have to violate their principles by doing business with gay people. that is a principle of the mod were republican party that. principle has won. >> dave chalian, i want to bring you in here. there are no sandra day connors on this list. there is a list that he will pick from. their views are very well known. there are no surprises. >> this is different than the regan era. donald trump, which was a shrewd political move for him in the midst of his battle for the republican nomination, wanted to prove to conservatives he was trustworthy on judges, tha

hours after scalia's death in february 2016, majority leader mitch mcconnell said the senate would waitntil after the presidential election to confirm a replacement. now feinstein and other top democrats are calling for something they have dubbed the mcconnell standard. >> our republican colleagues in the senate should follow the rule they set in 2016. not to consider a supreme court justice in an election year. >> republicans argue that it isn't the same because 2018 is not a presidential election year. >>> after much speculation, the feds said they will not build a detention facility at the concord naval weapons station. homeland security made clear they are not planning to build anywhere in california. the city does not control the federal land in question. but activists still want stronger stand. >>> right now, protests are under way at an i.c.e. facility in portland, oregon. this video shows tensions between demonstrators and police. the u.s. attorney's office says officers reopened the federal facility this morning to house illegal immigrants. >>> the trump administration's immigr

to take justice antony scalia seat. now the opportunity to move to the right.e so-called swing vote. >> the cases swing, i don't. >> reporter: kennedy has never liked that swing vote label but for years it has been his vote that decided the outcome of cases. >> thank you for coming to witness this historic occasion. >> reporter: kennedy, a ronald reagan appointee was sworn in, in 1988. >> i shall honor the constitution. >> reporter: he sided with conservative colleagues on issues such as gun control and voting rights. striking down election spending limits for corporations. >> congratulations. >> reporter: in bush v. gore, he helped clear the way for george bush's presidency. to the dismay on those on the right. he joined the right. his most lasting legacy will be likely in the area of gay rights. kennedy penned a landmark opinion clearing the way. for same sex marriage nationwide. >> anthony kennedy grew up in a conservative catholic family in sacramento california. but something that offended him from the beginning about discrimination against gay people. his

kagen, justice scalia, several nominees from both parties had confirmed during midterm year. paul: filibuster is no -- >> you can blame harry reid for that in 2013 because he we wanted to pack the dc circuit so that they could reinforce the obama regulations. paul: that was for appellate courts. >> that's right. paul: with gorsuch nomination, the republicans decided to get rid of it for supreme court nominations but that's in part because the democrats opposed gorsuch. >> they didn't want to allow confirmation, you saw manchin, three democrats did vote but they would not have allowed trump to get any nominee on to the court. paul: they supported gorsuch and they wouldn't have unless the republicans had shown an advance that they had the votes to confirm. >> that's right. paul: democrats would have been a lot smarter to support gorsuch and retain filibuster for this nomination. >> absolutely, they have nothing going in. couple things, the fact that they are reacting so strongly tells us the supreme court looms too large in our life. paul: could not agree more, bill. >> persona

that's after justice antonin scalia died in 2010-had20. >>> the president has a short list of nominees. >> the president has a list he put out last fall of 25 names of potential supreme court nominees. two judges on that list were finalists for the supreme court opening that ended up going to justice ilpresident tr interviewed both of those two. we are hearing that they are at the top of the list but at the very top according to our sources right now is a man named brett kavanaugh. he is a judge, currently serves on the u.s. court of appeals here in d.c. and he was nominated for that job back in2006 by george w. bush. >>> thank you. senators dianne feinstein and kamala harris both calling for a delay in filling kennedy's seat until after the midterm elections. elections. >>> the supreme court delivered a setback to organized labor. in a 5-4 vote with the conservative justices in the majority, the court ruled that not to join unions should not be forced to pay dues saying forcing them to pay was a violation of the first amendment rights. it means unions could lose tens of millions of do