supreme court? we're out with a new survey today, available on our website, at c-span.org, and joining us is robert green, the pollster for pen, shown and berlin. let's go through the highlights, according to the survey you conducted on behalf of c-span, 90% said the supreme court decisions affect their lives and 82% saying that the supreme court appointments were an important consideration in their vote in 2016. did these numbers surprise you? >> i tell you, the only thing that surprised me was as big as the numbers are, they have gotten more intense over the eight years that we have been conducting research on these subjects. periodically for c-span. for instance, eight years ago, first time we did it, the strongly agree on the 90% was in the 30s, now it is almost 50%. to put it another way, almost 50% of americans strongly agree that the decisions have an impact on their everyday lives. the other thing that i was struck by and you see this in that 81% number you mentioned, 82% number you mentione

. >> president trump's supreme court nominee facing his first hearings tomorrow, also the one year anniversary of trump making that very promise. welcome back to our msnbc special coverage, supreme confirmation clash. trump pledged a litmus test on abortion for his judges. >> do you want to see the court overturn roe v. wade? >> if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be -- that will happen. and that will happen automatically in my opinion because i am putting pro-life justices on the court. i will say this, it will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination. >> listen to that closely, the argument about the states is a key pro-life talking point, the idea that even reversing roe v. wade would not end all abortion access in the u.s. but at other points in the campaign, trump was not on script. he said things that managed to outrage people on both sides of the abortion debate, like the bizarre claim that women should be punished or jailed for receiving an abortion, an assertion he made under questioning by chris matthews. >> do

it says a lot about the person we will have on the supreme court. and with that fair minded approach he will bring to the court and they agree with one of the judge's colleagues that i am not sure that we could expect better we are glad to have so many here today and we will start with senator graham. in with all of those who could not become supreme court but there are more of us then there are a of view i enjoy the lot and a like politics also for the of president there is no other qualified person as a conservative jurist with the demeanor program on the supreme court and 2700 cases with one reversal in to be over on the supreme court so to my aid democratic colleagues but that tells me you don't care about the qualifications i voted for the judges under the obama and administration and would not have chosen either one atop the word well qualified. but neil gorsuch is one of the morse qualified to be on the supreme court will get the reports of fuel believe me 900 statements law clerks lawyers and judges all who have served with mr. gorsuch that h

supreme court nominees in his first term, not for the supreme court nominees of the newly elected president obama either. as "the washington post" fact checker reminded us again just this very morning, once again there is no traditional 60-vote standard or rule for supreme court nominations, no matter how much or how often democrats claim otherwise. so i would ask our democratic friends, do they really want to launch the first wholly partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee in american history? do they really think history books or the american people will look kindly on them for filibustering this amazingly well qualified and widely respected nominee? judge gorsuch has earned an enormous amount of praise from across the political spectrum and from a wide array of publications all across our country. like "the chicago tribune," which recently called for his confirmation, saying that judge gorsuch has shown himself to be committed to the principle that judges should rule on the law as written and applied equally to all. and the detroit news, the paper said judge gorsuch is proving hims

on the supreme court, the character that is appropriate to be on the supreme court. 2,700 cases decided as a circuit court judge with one reversal. so i'm here to tell you, he's going to be on the supreme court because he's earned the right to be there. the only question is how. it's not even when. to my democratic colleagues, if he can't get 60 votes, neil gorsuch, that tells me you don't care about qualifications any longer. i voted for soto mayor and kagen under the obama administration. i would not have chosen either one but i thought they were well-qualified and i can say without hesitation coordinate to the american bar -- according to the american bar association, judge gorsuch needs to be on are the supreme court. 900 pages, 500 people interviewed. law clerks, lawyers, judges, all those who have served with mr. gorsuch for a long period of time and they came to the conclusion he was well-qualified the highest rating. so as to judge garland, incredibly qualified man. he was a victim of nothing other than the biden rule. in 1992, joe biden told president bush 41, if somebody retir

supreme court? we're out with a new survey able at c-span.org. >>> let's go through some of the highlights. first of all according to the survey which you conducted on behalf of c-span, 90% say the supreme court affects their lives and 82% say it was an important consideration in their vote in 2016. did these numbers surprise you? >> the only that surprised me was as big as these numbers are they have gotten more intense over the eight years we've been conducting research on these suggests periodically for c-span, for instance eight years ago when we did it the strongly agree on the 90% was in the 30s, now it's almost 50%, almost 50% of americans strongly degree that the decisions have an impact on their every day lives. the other thing i was struck by and you see this in that 82% number you mentioned is it is bipartisan, it really cuts across the parties, everybody feels strongly that what happened with the supreme court was an important factor in their vote. >> can you walk us through the methodol

supreme court. in addition, judge bork authored dissenting opinions in 25 remaining cases, and the supreme court adopted the viewpoint expressed by judge bork in those dissents on six different occasions. many have offered the observation that judge bork may well have the most remarkable record on appeal of any currently sitting u.s. federal judge. i think it is a fair conclusion from these statistics that judge bork's judicial rulings during these 5 years have not been at variance with the prevailing views of the current supreme court. frankly, mr. chairman, i find it personally difficult to reconcile some of the charges that have been leveled against judge bork with his record since becoming an appellate federal judge. his judicial philosophy, in practice as well as in theory, is fully consistent with traditional american legal thought. for robert bork, the role of the judge is to apply the intent of the legislature to a legal fact situation. following the president's nomination of judge bork tith

supreme court. a day of questioning today and tomorrow, a long day today, perhaps not quite as long as tomorrow and they'll wrap it up, expected to, on thursday with witnesses testifying in favor and opposed to the nomination of judge gorsuch who has been on the tenth circuit since 2006. we will be here throughout the day on c-span3. we look for your comments too on facebook and also on twitter. we're at @c-span and also wanted to point you as well, remind you too of our survey released last week, looking at the supreme court. the c-span psb survey for 2017 looking at attitudes of people towards supreme court, how much attention they pay to it and the question of cameras in the court. you can find that on our web page at c-span.org and just click on the supreme court link at the top of the page and you'll find your way there. again, throughout the day, live coverage here on c-span3. s >> john kennedy from louisiana, there are eleven republicans and nine democrats on the senate judiciary committee. t

and follow spain's were sufficient nominees to the supreme court. and she's judge merrick garland who had exactly the same qualifications and research used by the republicans on the court today. that's why the philosophy becomes important. in contrast, nominees like john roberts whose judicial philosophy was not clearly articulated when he appeared before this committee, judge gorsuch appears to have a comprehensive originalist philosophy. the approach taken by justice scalia for justice thomas or judge bork. while it's gained some popularity within conservative circles, originally semi-believe remains outside the mainstream moderate constitutional jurisprudence. it has been 25 years since an originalist has been nominated to the supreme court, given what we've seen from justice scalia, justice thomas and judge gorsuch on record, i believe it would go beyond being a philosophy and an agenda. we know conservatives and the millionaires who fund them have a clear agenda. anti-choice, antienvironment, pro-corporate. and these groups are obviously confide

by nominating judge neil gorsuch of the united states supreme court, to be of the united states supreme court. i would like to ask judge gorsuch and his wonderful wife louise to please step forward. please, louise, judge. here they come. here they come. [applause] president trump: was that a surprise? was it? [applause] president trump: i have always felt that after the defense of our nation, the most important decision a president of the united states can make is the appointment of a supreme court justice. depending on their age, a justice can be active for 50 years and his or her decisions could last a century or more and can often be permanent. i took the task of this nomination seriously. i have selected an individual whose qualities define, closely define what we are looking for. judge gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bipartisan support. when he was nominated to the 10th circuit court of appeals, he was confirmed by the senate unanimously. also, -- unanimous, can you believe that nowadays with what is going on? [applause]

supreme court. judge gorsuch did the same things as justices ginsberg and kagan and fulfilled his ethical obligations as a sitting judge and preserved the judiciary by keeping an open mind for cases that come before him. so when they failed to make the case of judge gorsuch as somehow out of the mainstream, when they failed to make the case that he somehow was being nonresponsive in answering questions by the judiciary committee, the goalposts moved yet again. last week some suggested that judge gorsuch never ruled in favor of the, quote, little guy. this was following a line of argument pedaled by some outside groups trying to paint judge gorsuch as somehow unsympathetic to the litigants that appeared in his court. fortunately judge gorsuch set the record straight. he made clear that his motivation in each and every case is to follow the law wherever it may lead and to reach a decision based on where the law stands, not on his personal opinions or emotions. again, a good judge doesn't judge the lit

. >> what do you think about the us a supreme court? we are out with a new survey w today available on a website at c-span.org and joining us is robert greene, he is a poster. thank you for being with us? guest: thank you. host: according to the survey that you conducted 90% said the supreme court decision affects their lives and 82% say the supreme court appointment were an appointment consideration in their bow 2016. did these numbersenns surprise you? guest: the only thing that actually surprised me was as big as these numbers are they have haven more intense over the eight years we have been conducting research on these subjects periodically for c-span. four instance eightei years ago the first time we did it the strongly--, they strongly agree on the 90% was in the 30s and now it's almost 50%e that here to put it another way almost 50% of americans strongly agree the decisions have an impact on their everyday lives. the other thing i was a struck by an you see this and that 81% number you mentioned or 82% number you mentioned is th

supreme court. if one looks at his opinions, one will notice he does have judicial restrain, but in 1987 that might make a lot of sense because that means he probably won't be overturning many of the decisions of the 1960's, 1950's, 1970's and 1980's and as a result of that you'll have stability on the court which i think all of us in the united states desire today. and let me make one further observation. you will hear testimony from the gentleman i have a great deal of admiration for in the next few days. the gentleman is from sacramento. his name is nathaniel colley. he is a black lawyer. he was former general counsel of the naacp. he was born in alabama, came to sacramento, opened up his law practice and became truly one of the prominent lawyers in the united states. one of the great lawyers in the state of california. i'd like to read his testimony when he gives it because it will demonstrate the regard that lawyers, law students, ordinary individuals have for judge kennedy. i heartily endorse

supreme court. and as he finishes his argument he came out to those eye congressic supreme court steps and was surrounded -- iconic supreme court steps and was surrounded by reporters hanging on his every word from stage right this figure came striding toward him saying, i want to congratulate my best friend, my good friend, the man who worked so tirelessly with me to save the haitian refugees. my brother, my friend, he leans close and puts his arm around my friend, the academic, gets in the picture frame, turns to him and says, what's your name? [laughter] well, i know neil gorsuch. i know his name and i worked with him for a decade. we practiced civil trial law together. across the united states. a variety of cases. and i'm happy to be here today to tell you what that experience might suggest to you and to the public about the kind of supreme court justice neil gorsuch is likely to be. unlike our president, who is going to be turned out either four years from now or eight years from now, he can't

historically, presidents do consider philosophy when appointing nominees to the supreme court. that is part of our system of government. it is the manner in which the american people have an opportunity to influence the court. but this president was re-elected overwhelmingly when the issue of such appointments was a major, well-discussed campaign issue. because this process is well understood by the american people, any nominee selected by a president comes to the senate with a presumption in his favor. accordingly, opponents of the nominee must make the case against him. that is why opponents of judge bork are trying to fit him into some accepted basis for disqualification or create a new one to defeat him. first, judge bork's opponents will try to raise questions about his character and integrity. failing this, they will assert that he is disqualified by virtue of his philosophy, by labeling him as an extremist or "outside the mainstream." this, in essence, refers to the purely philosophical test which i have discussed. a review of judge bork's record indicates that he, indeed

and follow spain's were sufficient nominees to the supreme court. and she's judge merrick garland who had exactly the same qualifications and research used by the republicans on the court today. that's why the philosophy becomes important. in contrast, nominees like john roberts whose judicial philosophy was not clearly articulated when he appeared before this committee, judge gorsuch appears to have a comprehensive originalist philosophy. the approach taken by justice scalia for justice thomas or judge bork. while it's gained some popularity within conservative circles, originally semi-believe remains outside the mainstream moderate constitutional jurisprudence. it has been 25 years since an originalist has been nominated to the supreme court, given what we've seen from justice scalia, justice thomas and judge gorsuch on record, i believe it would go beyond being a philosophy and an agenda. we know conservatives and the millionaires who fund them have a clear agenda. anti-choice, antienvironment, pro-corporate. and these groups are obviously confide

honestly, that's how our supreme court works. very time i'm up there i get a lump in my throat because i see it firsthand and i wish the court would proceed it's seedy proceeding so i could so they could see what i see every day. it is because of that deep fairness on the court like i like so many americans are outraged that mayor garland is not sitting on the court today and had the pleasure of appearing before him. he has grilled me once for over an hour, garland's brilliance is fairness, and meticulous attention to detail make him perhaps the most qualified nominee ever to be named report. there's no doubt in my mind that if mayor garland had been confirmed and another vacancy had been opened up, judge gorsuch would be sailing through with a close to 8020 vote. it is a tragedy of national a person that mayor garland does not sit on the court. it would it would take a lot to get over that and there is less than a handful of people that the president could have nominated to even start revealed that loss of trust. in my opinion, n

this is just over two hours. >> as supreme court nominee neil gorsuch rares to testify before the senate judiciary committee, c-span takes a look at the court's current justices. we begin with the longest-sitting member of the court, anthony kennedy. appointed by ronald reagan after the failed nomination of robert bork, justice kennedy was confirmed unanimously this 19ing 8 -- in 1988. he replaced justice louis powell and previously served on the ninth circuit court of appeals. here's a brief portion of justice kennedy's confirmation hearing beginning with an introduction by california congressman robert matsui. .. judge kennedy in an of itself is a superb candidate for united stes supreme court. in comparison to do not this gentleman justice. he has a deep compassion for the law, as many of you know your keys highly intelligent of his academic record. we can discern that come and his experience, 12 years on the appellate court in california and in the western area demonstrates a level that very few nominees to the supreme court demonstrate. obviously, judge kennedy is a conservative, an

supreme court. comparisons to not do this gentleman just this. with a deep compassion for the law, highly intelligent from his academic record in his experience of 12 years on the appellate court to demonstrate a level that very few nominees demonstrate. obviously judge kennedy is a conservative we support him because of our personal knowledge of judge kennedy. i look back at sacramento county where we grew up and i can talk to those 1 million people and not one would have anything negative to say about this candidate. one individual when asked by reporters what they thought of him said they noticed a lack of the observable ego. he is a man of humility, and compassion and individual that has no ego and to understand is the of plight of the common man. are also have to say even though he is a conservative we have a great deal of confidence in terms of what he will do for the u.s. supreme court. if one looks at his opinions name will notice he has judicial restraint that might make sense because that

supreme court. i believe that a nominee should be extraordinary to merit the distinction of being one of nine on our highest court. i should state at the outset that i do not agree with all of judge gorsuch's legal views. however, i believe that judge gorsuch to be an exceptional choice for the court. while many have focused on replacing a conservative with another conservative, the primary concern should be to replace an intellectual with another intellectual. judge gorsuch is precisely that type of nominee who has the intellectual reach and vigor to sit in the chair of the late antonin scalia. one of the primary complaints regarding past nominees has been a lack of substantive writings or opinions on major legal issues of our time. such individuals can make for good nominees. they do not make for great justices. judge gorsuch is a refreshing departure from that trend. he has a record of well-considered writings, both as a judge and as an author, so this is not a blind date. we have a very good ide

there's a rulemaking committee and a rules enabling act process for the lower courts, and the supreme court has its own rulemaking progress process. and and i appreciate that information for both functions. >> and as a -- >> you're welcome -- [inaudible] >> you'll also have a role this policing the judiciary as the top court. one of the things that's cropped up is special interest training camps, basically, at lush resorts for lower court judges as much as 40% of the federal judiciary has gone to these special interest-funded training sessions described by one writer as a cross between maoist cultural reeducation classes and club med. there's been a wide array of condemnation of this practice from editorialists of all stripes, and is that something as a matter of kind of protecting the integrity of the courts to which the supreme court should attend itself? >> well, senator, i know as a sitting judge i disclose every trip i take that isn't official business that anybody else pays for -- >> and to your credit, you went to none of these, as far as i can tell. >> thank you, senator. i apprecia

thing, they did something that 70% of americans wanted, put limits on campaign finance, and the supreme court said, no, that violates the right of corporations. and jim's going to tell us about a wonderful thing the court did and, you know, completely must give them credit for that. but we need to remember that before they did that at an earlier era in the gay rights movement when they really could have made an importance difference in bow wers v. hardwick, the case was of a man who was arrested in his home for engaging in sodomy, and the supreme court said that's fine for georgia to make that a criminal offense. as i say, i think my book has sort of two stories in it; one is the story of this terrible eugenic era that we don't talk about enough and that, you know, could in certain ways be coming back, and the other is this, you know, conception of what the supreme court is really about x. particularly now when there's a lot of, you know, unexpected things going on in politics from the other two branches, i think a lot of people may feel, well, at least we have supreme court. i'd like to say

it's absolutely the case that this supreme court will be tried in ways that few courts have been tested since the earliest days of the republic when constitutional questions abounded. the president himself has attacked individual judges and the credibility of the judiciary at large. the president attacked the three-judge panel of the ninth circuit and said if they didn't decide with him, they would be responsible for the next terrorist act. i have never, never, heard any president in my lifetime or read about any president in recent history who dare do that. it requires a strong, we are in unchartered territory with this president and with judicial independence. it requires a strong independent backbone. judge gorsuch has shown none. senators on the judiciary committee rightly asked judge gorsuch direct questions about this issue. i did so myself in my meeting with the judge. and while the judge repeatedly asserted his independence he could not point to anything in his record to guarantee it. judge gorsuch or for the judiciary myriad platitudes of this point, no man is above the law, he

this is about who should be on the supreme court. we're selecting a judge for the most important court of the la land. nearly everyone who has looked at this nominee's record, who has watched his confirmation hearing, they agree that he would be an excellent justice. there was one lawyer who wrote an op-ed in "the washington post" on march 8. he's a board member of the liberal american constitution society. he wrote that, quote, there is no principled reason to vote against judge gorsuch. a denver post editorial last week said judge gorsuch would make, quote, a marvelous addition to the supreme court, a marvelous addition. the american bar association has given him the highest possible rating. he was even introduced at his confirmation hearing last week by a former top lawyer for the obama administration. neal katyal is a democrat. he was the acting solicitor general under president obama for the united states. he has called judge gorsuch one of the most thoughtful and brilliant judges to have served on our nation over the last centur

the primary job of the supreme court is not to uphold the will of the majority of the moment. the primary job of the supremeft court justice is not to reflect the opinions of the day. that might sound surprising. don't we live in a democracy where the majority is supposed to rule the? the answer to the question is a qualified yes for there are critical limits to that statement. the constitution is a decidedly and intentionally anti-majoritarian document. the constitution exists to protect the rights and liberties even when we might hold unpopular views. and the role of the supreme court and protecting the rights and liberties is sometimes precisely to frustrate the will of the majority. think about how the constitution deals with religion. they show a popular desire in the country to pass a law making church attendance mandatory or to subsidize the particular religious the nomination. they would strike down such laws and this is because in the constitution, we decided we would limit our own power. by enacting the constitution, we intentionally decided to tie our own hands so th

cameras in the supreme court, km cameras in the courtroom, if you would. that number is a strong majority similar to some of the other numbers we've spoken about this morning. what is most striking about it is over eight years there's been a strong increase in support for cameras from 61% of all voters to 76% in this latest survey. that's pretty impressive. i mean, this has been a subject that is -- it's bubbling up from the ground, if you would. people would like to know more. they care more than they did in the past and they cared then. the ability to see the oral arguments i think is very important. i'll speak to that for just a moment. the supreme court has it seems to me a problem, which is that it is interpreted if you would be the media, by the president, by the congress. they never allow their work to speak for itself televising oral arguments would let people see that they operate in a serious and constitutional manner and i don't think that's clear to people. according to the polling they think it's something like congress and it is strange that

it's because he failed to convince 60 senators that he belongs on the supreme court. in that event, the answer is not to permanently change the rules and traditions of the senate. the answer is to change the nominee and do what president clinton and president obama did before they nominated people, consult the other party so there would be some semblance of bipartisanship. the majority's trying to make this a binary choice, confirm gorsuch or change the rules. not so. just not so. the idea that if judge gorsuch can't get 60, we must immediately move to change the rules is a false narrative. if the majority chooses to go that route, they do so at their own volition. no one is forcing them to do so, except maybe the heritage foundation and groups, the leadp time is reserved.

wade decided in by the president of the united states supreme court has been reaffirmed. rations are important their and other factors that go into analyzing president have to be considered. it is the president of the united states up in court. inwas reaffirmed in kc 1992 and other cases. courtney: you can watch the hearing on bloomberg tv and on bloomberg.com. the u.s. is thinking about banning electronic devices on flights. it is and at travelers coming from police and north africa. they are going to have the store devices larger than mobile phones and their checked baggage. the bbc says the u.k. vance may be somewhat different. eu make yous the trimester theresa may waiting could they may wait until april 6 two agree on the line for negotiating positions. the meeting will happen april 29 and that will be into the two-week bargaining period. bak apologized to the korean people and apologized to investigators. she had immunity while under prosecution by the office. global news 20 for hours a day powered by more than 2600 journalists and analysts in more than 120 coun

after 18 years, nine-member supreme court would turn over entirely. according to the noted supreme powell, 18 year system long enough to do the job and do it well and guarantee independence, while short enough to avoid problems that life tenure creates. about life tenure for supreme court justices. democrats,e numbers, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. up first, new york, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning, i'm not in favor of lifetime appointment to supreme court, i think there is an end to a nd judicial position. be an age re should and i f 80 years of age do thank them for service, that doesn't mean they are not apable, but i think after serving such a long time -- with a very tough job, and let e to move on someone else take the seat. thank you very much. 80 years of ould age be cut off no matter how old were ice is, when they appointed and confirmed? thatif it is a 79-year-old is confirmed? caller: i haven't seen that done ately, i don't think a 79 year old would be on the supreme court. i think for the judicial

let me offer an example.not abou the first case i wrote as a judge to reach the supreme court divided 5-4. the court from my judgment with the support of justice thomas and sotomayor with justice stevens and scalia in the sent. now that's a lined up some might think unusual, but actually it is exactly the sort of thing that happens quietly, day in and day out in the united states supreme court, and in the courts across this country. i wonder if people realize that justices thomas and sotomayor agree about 60% of the time, or justices scalia and breyer agree even more often than that. all in the very toughest cases. in our entire legal system. and here's another example about my record. over the last decade i participate in over 2700 appeals, often these cases are hard, too. only about 5%% of all federal lawsuits make their way to decision in the court of appeals. i've served with judges appointed by president obama all the way back to president johnson. and in the tenth circuit we hear cases from six different states covering two time zones and 20% of the continental united states. bu

yesterday the supreme court explicitly rejected judge gorsuch's standard. the court found judge gorsuch's standard mischaracterized the intent and language of congress and supreme court precedent. the court found in requiring an appropriate public education congress meant what it said. the court stated when all is said and done a student offered an educational program providing merely more than minimum progress can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all. unfortunately, it is likely too late for many children with disabilities in colorado, kansas, new mexico, oklahoma, utah and wyoming who have been subjected to the soft bigotry of expectations for nearly ten years. judge gorsuch's other idea opinions have shifted standards of review and created legal mine fields of administrative processes to undermine the education rights of students with disabilities. and judge gorsuch's opinions on the rights of adults with disabilities also reflect rather than challenge stereotypes that congress enacted in federal disability -- rejected. congress passed

let's talk about the supreme court because that exemplifies exactly what i'm talking about. over the last several weeks, my republican friends have tried to paint judge neil gorsuch as the idea of a neutral and impartial judge and they insisted he is an straight down the middle someone that will just call the strikes. he even likes to cite the letter of a friend of a judge that says there is no principled reason to oppose his nomination. of course there are several reasons to object. today i would like to focus on p one in particular, his ties to conservative interest and ideological groups. the idea that he would be a neutral mainstream justice iss belied by his career, his judicial record and perhaps most of all, the manner with which he was selected to serve on the supreme court. he was called from a list hand-picked by the federalist society and the foundation, conservative organizations that spent the last few decades systematically trying to shift the balance of the court to the right. most of my colleagues on the other side know how far right even they heritage founda

-- a supreme court justice has been approved.hy should they have stolen that from this president in the last years of obama's term? itthey not understand that is not in the constitution that he had the right to do that? thatare just thinking mccarthy put someone forward, that he had the right to have that person confirmed. that is not the truth. that is not the history of this country, and this judge should .e confirmed, 100% he is a fantastic guy. host: a lot of focus this morning on judge merrick garland, president obama's nominee for the supreme court spot. usa today in their coverage of yesterday's hearings focusing on some of the exchanges that talked about marriage garland, specifically when democrats tried to get judge neil gorsuch to agree the judge merrick garland got a raw deal. they write and their story today -- ever the diplomat, gorsuch did not bite. i think he is an outstanding judge, but i cannot get involved in politics. that is why judges do not clap at the state of the union. guy is in maryland, good morning. c

supreme court. one will notice he does demonstrate judicial restraint that means probably not overturning any of the decisions of the '50s through eighties and as a result we will have stability on the court. and let me make one further observation of a gentleman that i have a great dealof admiration for in the next few days the gentleman is from sacramento. he is a black lawyer former general counsel of the naacp and born in alabama and one of the prominent lawyers of the united states one of the great trial lawyers in the state of california. of like you to listen to his testimony because that will demonstrate the regard that lawyers are law students are ordinary individuals have for judge kennedy landor's his nomination to the united states supreme court. you cannot make a better selection. >> i appreciate the gracious will come from the members of the committee this morning. from my district in sacramento and three of those i have known for a number of years. this is an appropriate time to think

supreme court ever hearing. with the experimentation and with those to delegitimize the court and as he said this overwhelming addiction to debate social policy is a place to debate social policy is the judiciary we lose that political processt of- that only the elected branches can provide the is a deep appreciation for those separation of powers by the founding fathers a firm and independent judiciary is critical to the well functioning democracy. judge gorsuch understands those institutions and the special authority that comes from the consent of the government judges must allow them to flourish to the elected representatives with fact and circumstances and judge gorsuch respects the judgment of those who came before him to honor president it is the appropriate temperament the fidelity to the constitution the remarkable humility that has made him a consensus picks over the legislative m legal communities. and ken salazar praised his a temperament to say to have the demonstrated to fairness and impartiality fro

supreme court. please join me in welcoming elizabeth schlatterly. elizabeth? >> thank you, john. president donald trump selected neil gorsuch, 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 client

thoughts on ifour should the judge make it to the supreme court, how it changes the make up. kennedy, kennedy is on the court, kennedy, that swing vote when it comes to issues, is there some influence on some level as far s having gorsuch there at same time as kennedy? guest: this is historic. time someone clerked for a justice saving at the same time with that judge. is formative experience in a young lawyer's life having that clerk relationship. of people as they describe gorsuch writing style entertaining, s accessible as scalia's writing edge.t the hard someone starting out, i don't say scalia fair to himself has an edge, he had famously close relationship with ginsburg, ideological pposite on the bench, but they were close. it will be interesting to see gorsuch with clean slate and able to make slightly different case. it is a new court. the inner play will be interplay during oral argument will be dfrnlt, as well. guest: absolutely. member of the nine-justice court, every new member changes a dynamic there, is important, not just numerical vote to get to on to win, but t

judge gorsuch should be confirmed to the supreme court and he will be confirmed to the supreme court. on any objective measure, judge gorsuch is impeccably well-qualified for the court. a graduate of columbia and harvard law school and oxford, a former law clerk to justi justie byron white, he has spent a lifetime in the law, building a record demonstrating that he would make an exemplary justice. the justice for whom he clerked, byron white was the only supreme court justice appointed by president john f. kennedy. and, anyone who watched the confirmation hearing last week would see a judge who's demonstrated a fidelity to law for a lifetime. despite personal attacks, unfair slights, despite political efforts to appease some of the activists, some of whom are gathered here today, there were no meaningful substantive concerns raised about judge gorsuch. indeed, if this were being decided on the record, judge gorsuch would be confirmed 100 o hypothesize about that because judge gorsuch has been confirmed 100 - 0 a decade ago when he was nominated to the federal court of appeals for the

supreme court. i will introduce the moderator, who is a supreme court correspondent, adam liptak. the new york times purveyor of genuine news. he will introduce other panelists. take it away. thank you all for being here. mr. liptak: thank you. so i see in the flyer that we promised you an engaging roundtable of experts. i'm going to introduce the panelists and then talk a little bit about the formatting and get under way. so to my right is mr. dvoretzky, from jones day where he wanders the empty hallways. looking for his colleagues that have joined the trump administration. 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 th

live on c-span i would definitely watch and came up in our recent poll with psb on the supreme court. the court? 76% of the people who responded said yes, they would like to see cameras in the court and can read that entire survey on c-span.org. you are going to hear chuck grassley ask judge gorsuch about that right out of the gate. we wait for the committee to gavel back in. >>> good morning, judge. and i know you slept well. >> he didn't answer that. >> is that a question? >> welcome back. and as a committee i don't know that we have recognized your wife luis but these back and very patient sitting there. you mentioned yesterday that the confirmation hearing of your mentor justice byron white lasted all of 90 minutes. yesterday's hearing was a bit longer, and i'm sure that you needed your rest and i'm glad you had it. i was impressed yesterday both with your poise and your thoughtfulness throughout the long day. i came away with i think a greater admiration for you and particularly how serious you take your duty to give each litigant who enters your courtroom a fair shake as well as

>> he's following what the supreme court says and the supreme court wholesale, we're not talking about has not been as good on the fourth amendment stuff. i'm hoping he can side more with a justice thomas or justice scalia was then, say, a justice alito who is more about prosecution. >> you can pick and choose different issues. the bottom line is, there's a lot to be asked of this candidate for the court that has not been asked and we're looking forward to the hearings to see what the senators can find out about it. >> paul smith, ilya, deray, thank you for joining us. >>> neil gorsuch about to undergo the toughest grilling of his life. how will he hold up? we'll talk to one of his clerks, next. >> do you know who this is? >> a republican. >> yes. >> okay. >> i would say the same thing. i don't know. >> is it the dude that -- that, like -- what's his name, spicer? healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose. the east and the west are mine. the north and the south are mine. all seems beautiful to me. to take advantage of this offer on a vo

supreme court. i'll introduce our moderator, adam liptak, who is a supreme court correspondent for what i like to call "the new york times," purveyor of genuine news. [laughter] and he will introduce our other panelists ask take it away. >> thank you, i just call it the failing new york times. [laughter] so we promised you an engaging round table of experts. the expertise real and the engaging, we'll find out. [laughter] i'm going to introduce the panelists and then talk a little bit about the format and then get underway. to my right is shay def relates sky who's a partner be at jones day where i'm guessing he now wanders the hallways. he's a graduate of harvard law school, a form per law clerk of justice scalia and has argued numerous cases before the supreme court. to his right is caroline fredrickson, president of the american constitution society. she's a graduate of columbia law school ands has worked also at the aclu, and they were all profrom-choice america. then kristine lucius who's a grad