supreme court? according to my dear friend from iowa, he is saying president obama should be blamed for what those republicans on the supreme court did. this is alice in wonderland. this is alice in wonderland. i don't care what happens to president obama has to get blamed for it. if we have a hurricane or something, must be president obama's fault. but this is as far a stretch as i've ever heard, that was the supreme court goes down in approval rating because of the five members -- [phone ringing] -- i apologize for that. because of the five members of the supreme court. i apologize. i'm sure president obama is going to get blamed for that. but if the approval rating of the court goes down because of the five republicans who constituted the majority of it, is about as far-fetched as alice in wonderland to blame president obama for it. let's talk about facts. i like to talk about facts. in the way democrats have handled republican nominees. what my distinguished friend didn't point out, even though

supreme court. i think of it as more of the typical case where you really can make plausible arguments on either side. and less -- and let's face it, judges being him and end ideology and politics play a role. -- judges being human and ideology and politics play a role. a reasoning that cannot be plausibly grounded, i'm not saying the best argument cannot be plausibly grounded in the words of the constitution or statute. i certainly read the arguments on both sides. i think you can make the argument certainly either way. and another hallmark to me of true judicial activism is where the court is effectively acting as a legislature to amend the constitution or amend a statute. and the court went out of its way not to do that here. ironically, some progressives, that is their biggest complaint. but i think the court was trying to go out of its way not to be activist there. but i hoped at the time that, given the genuine outrage on the part of the left, i thought maybe it -- it might be too strong of a

the supreme court is a teaching institution. if you are public attorney in california, and maybe arguing a case at any appellate court, whether it be california, or the ninth circuit court of appeals, you want to us the best people in the country doing their jobs, and those are the advocates of before the supreme court and the nine justices on the bench. and the fact that unless you can pay and get a plane ticket to d.c., get a hotel, it is cost and time prohibitive. i went to the supreme court the other day, because this is my job and i set my alarm for 4:00 a.m., i was able to set that, stand in line for five hours, and go in. but the idea that the vast majority of the country cannot see their government in action, is ridiculous. as for the teaching point, not only appellate attorneys, but thousands of law students across the country would learn a great deal from the way the justices interact with one another in the way the attorneys interact. am i was at the supreme court's the other day, had there been cameras, you would've

harmute the supreme court as well. of evil picture has been painted of this man after nearly three months? americans believe he is for poll taxes and literacy tests as a way to keep minorities from voting. some believe he would sterilize his fellow man if it suited the balance sheet of a big business firm. others believe he would single-handedly roll back the clock so that blacks in america would be banished to the back of the bus and women to the kitchen forever. he is even said to wink at the states installing cameras in the bedroom. after all, how else would we know if people are using contraceptives illegally? charges are unsurpassed in their ugliness. they are designed not to inform, but to inflame. to meat is so surprising about this litany of lies is that the people who help spread the hysteria actually know that they are lies. the ought to scare daylights out of every american, because as any wrongly accused person will tell you, it's a very tiresome and tedious process to disprove reckless allegations. i ask m

a supreme court nominee. how do you feel about that? scalia was a conservative and a constitutionalist and we should go with whatever -- i don't think we should undo the balance. that is what i have to say about it. it is a shame that it comes at this time. it is a shame that he died when he died. i think the voters should begin the opportunity and the senate has that way of doing things and i think they should take it. host: one of those senators not in the meeting room was ted cruz. we go next to lorain, ohio. caller: that last caller, i don't agree with. that is like a republican dictatorship. find that the republicans want everything -- that is not the american democratic way. i think that the republicans are point where they are threatening the very existence power.ican host: how so? caller: i find it written in the bible in isaiah 32:3-8. i think that if they don't change, if the american people do not vote those people like office,connell out of they are putting their children and this country in dire straits. thank you. host: th

they confirmed three supreme court justices.hey put everything ronald reagan's wanted on the floor of the house. him.refuse to work with they shut the government down. they refuse because republicans wanted. nancy pelosi worked with him, but these republicans kept on going. this is how they read the election, on hate, obstruction, and if you read the rhetoric, 75, you assume or they are going with this trust. they are trying to stop progress of america. they talk about the constitution. it is not a stop on the supreme court justice, it is a violation on the president. host: that is james from rome, georgia. public and called now -- republican call in tennessee. caller: hello. host: you your television and go ahead with their comment. -- mute your television and go ahead with your comment. caller: i am a retired police man, and i'm so tired of this congress. everybody wants to cause trouble and obstruction and don't want to do the right thing the because the two should say we should do when it comes to nominating a supreme court

the supreme court is a teaching institution. attorney an appellate in california, and maybe arguing a case at any appellate court, whether it be california, or the ninth circuit court of appeals, you want to us the best people in the country doing their jobs, and those are the advocates of before the supreme court and the nine justices on the bench. unless you can pay and get a plane ticket to d.c., get a hotel, it is cost and time prohibitive. i was able to go to supreme court because this is my job and i set my alarm for 4:00 a.m., i was able to set that, stand in line for five hours, and go in. the vast majority of the country cannot see their government in action, and that is ridiculous. as for the teaching point, not only appellate attorneys, but thousands of law students across the country would learn a great deal from the way the justices interact with one another in the ay the attorneys interact. when i was at the supreme court the other day, had there been cameras, you would've seen justice kagan sharing notes with just

he has a series of opinions that establishes the authority of the supreme court to review state supremecourt decisions, where he defines the contours of national power, including congressional power. scope of the opinion , his brilliance, and also his personality, he took what was this very lowly, disdained cord and really turned it into the supreme court of the united states. host: what should we remember him for? i cannot remember who it was that basically said, 90% of life is just showing up. john marshall shows up. he stays for a very long time, 34 years. his predecessor left. guy, all of her ellsworth, left. oliver ellsworth, left. there is not an alternative to the president until after fdr. remember a world where presidents are reelected perpetually. george washington steps down after two terms, and adams leaves peacefully, and jefferson steps down, madison, monroe, a tradition begins. washington established that. washington establishes that we will not have a president for life. john marshall really puts a kind of different spin on good behavior. he does not cut and run. he just

this will be president obama's third supreme court nominee. he has previously nominated and successfully they confirmed sonia sotomayor, as well as' lay that kagan. all right. we're going to go live now to the rose garden. let's listen in. >> good morning. everybody please have a seat. of the many powers and responsibilities that the constitution vests in the presidency, few are more consequential than appointing a supreme court justice. particularly one to succeed justice scalia, one of the most influential jurists of our time. the men and women who sit on the supreme court are the final arbiters of american law. they safeguard our rights. they ensure that our system is one of laws and not many. they are charged with the essential task of applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago to some of the most challenging questions of our time. so this is not a responsibility that i take likely. it's a decision that requires me to set aside short-term expediency and narrow politic, maintain faith with our founders and more importantly

i would think because the supreme court with five a republican appointed jury members on the supreme court are bringing down the approval rating of the supreme court of the american people it must be president obama's fault even though five members were nominated and approved before obama was in presidency. that goes too far. that is alice in wonderland. >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news of policy issues that impact you. on tomorrow morning new york republican congressman in minnesota democratic congressman say their opposition to the obama administration drawdown to the land forces to its lowest level since world war ii. the chair of the election commission talks about voting. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow morning. join the discussion. >> you're watching c-span2. next, all five fcc commissioners testified before senate commerce committee hearing. then in a joint economic hearing , later the house natural resources committee looks at the department of interior's 2017 budget request. >> this weekend the c-

supreme court, cited buck v.l in a case involving sterilization of a mildly mentally retarded woman. it is still the law of the land today. amy: the parallels today? >> they are strong. first of all, there's some subterranean eugenics sterilization going on. we're about prisons where women's are sterilized without their knowledge. in tennessee, prosecutor was cited for making it part of his plea agreement. we don't know if there's going to be another eugenics movement. we don't know if states will start to pass these laws. we don't know if congress my passes laws. there's a lot of fear in the land. it would be nuts to think the u.s. supreme court would've been the victims of these laws, but right now they're on record and it is constitutional. amy: what about african-americans to the 1920's and 1930's? >> in the 1920's, the same day that virginia passed the eugenics sterilization law, they passed the racial purity act, the exact same day. thereason they did that was eugenicists were so races, they did not bother

the confirmation of the next justice of the supreme court. we are not here to pacify a political base or satisfy one or more special constituencies orally our political parties. we are here to elevate our republic to make it a beacon for the world, to demonstrate how mature representatives of sovereign states govern a mature nation. this supreme court nomination is not a test of strength between the executive and legislative branches. it is a test of our strength as leaders with an honorable history and a heritage of wisdom and maturity. how we manage our constitutional duty to provide serious consideration and deliberation to a rare appointment to the nation's highest judicial office will determine whether we deserve the respect of americans who rightly expect us to exhibit dignity, mutual respect, and wisdom on their behalf. mr. president, i yield the floor. # a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. a senator: mr. president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: with

supreme court or the florida supreme court. you look at all the decisions that were made, ideology played such a strong role, and in the heat of the moment, it was very difficult for anyone to be objective about it. one statistic, i think is really interesting, florida ballots are public records. so the ballots themselves were transported to an organization in illinois to have the ballots recounted. after everything's over, bush is already president. what they found was that on contested ballots, it's the counter, someone who's hired after the fact by this professional organization, if the counter was a democrat, they were much more likely to find a vote for gore, than if the counter was a republican. so it was such a heated political moment, that it was hard for anyone to be objective even after the fact. and i think in the heat of the moment, these things are so difficult that it suggests that the problems have to be solved on the front end so that we don't have the purges that pam talked about, so we don't have bad ballot de

i think back to the two supreme court nominations.e had republican senators who took part in that, not that many of them voted. i remember lindsey graham's line. this is not the nominee i would have put up that way this person is qualified. and i remember the hearings as well people have strong views on either side of the process worked. we have a process, hearing. the nominee went to the floor. the process we could be proud of. you look at the existing justices, longest in any of them went from the beginning of being nominated to the end of the confirmation 99 days,, clarence thomas. and so you have a history of those on the court now, the history of our country, the senate's role is to be funding the court, not to dictate the decisions but to fund the court and to advise and consent on the president's nominees. they have to do our job. and so it was a shock when the justice died, many of my friends are friends of his even though they did not necessarily have the same view, but it happened. the question is how we respond. i say,. i s

the senate has never, never confirmed a nominee to the supreme court, to a supreme court vacancy that "this late in president ind office. this is only the third of vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the american people had already started voting in a presidential election. and in the previous two instances in 1956 and 1965, excuse me, 1968, the senate did not confirm a nominee until the following year. and the only time, the only time the senate has ever confirmed a nominee supreme court vacancy, created after voting began in a presidential election year, was in 1916. that vacancy arose only because chief justice charles evans hughes resigned his seat on the court to run against incumbent president woodrow wilson. there was also another president that has received little attention but is worth considering. president john quincy adams nominated john clinton in the supreme court in december 1828. after andrew jackson won the presidential election. voteenate by voice rejected an amendment to a resolution regarding that clinton the nomination they discussed this vote and concluded

we are going to have a supreme court justice. and it's the right thing to do and mcconnell leading the troops over the cliff. senator stabenow: good afternoon. afternoon, we know one of the most important constitutional duties as a u.s. senator is to confirm justices of the united states supreme court, which is right behind us. yesterday president obama did fulfill his constitutional duty. he did his job in nominating judge merrick to the supreme court. as senator reid has said, he is a highly qualified, distinguished individual who deserves an up or down vote to the highest court in the land. despite this nomination, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to do their job, refusing to even move forward, refusing to even meet with him, refusing to hold hearings, or to have a vote. now i heard someone say, it's not about the person, it's about the principle. well first of all the american , people know that this president has announced an eminently qualified person to the united states supreme court. we believe in th

amy: with the death of supreme court justice antonin scalia less than three weeks ago, the supreme court has only eight justices, making it unlikely the case would set a national precedent restricting abortion, and opening the way for a four-four tie. such a tie could leave in place a lower court ruling largely upholding the texas law, potentially impacting other states in the same appeals court circuit -- mississippi, which has just one abortion clinic, and louisiana, where a similar admitting privileges law threatens to close all but one clinic in the state. the stakes were high wednesday when attorney stephanie toti stood before the supreme court to represent the texas abortion providers. it was her first time ever arguing a case at the supreme court. after the arguments, she addressed reporters outside. >> texas abortion clinic have a documented history of safety that goes back for decades. there's absolutely no evidence of any substandard provider in texas. those clinics are subject to rigorous scrutiny by state officials. they are inspected at least once a year and often more than

the reputation of the supreme court will, inevitably, suffer. faith in our justice system will inevitably suffer. our democracy will ultimately suffer as well. i have fulfilled my constitutional duty. now it's time for the senate to , do theirs. presidents do not stop working in the final year of their term. neither should a senator. i know that tomorrow the senate will take a break and leave town on recess for two weeks. my earnest hope is that senators take that time to reflect on the importance of this process to our democracy. not what's expedient, not what's happening at the moment, what does this mean for our institutions? for our common life? the stakes, the consequences, the seriousness of the job we all swore an oath to do. and when they return, i hope that they'll act in a bipartisan fashion. i hope they are fair. that's all. i hope they are fair. as they did when they confirmed merrick garland to the d.c. circuit. i ask that they confirm merrick garland now to the supreme court. so that he can take his seat in time to fully participat

supreme court. they had been striking down some of the key pieces of legislation in his new deal package, and so he came up with a bold plan in february of 1937. that bold plan was to add new justices to the supreme court, enough new justices to tip the balance his way. he presented this plan to change the supreme court for his political purposes to a democratic congress and a democratic united states senate. believing with his big re-election majority and the fact that most of the members of congress had supported his new deal agenda, that they would stand by him when it came to changing the supreme court so that it would start ruling his way. he was wrong. what happened then was that members of the united states senate decided to stand up to their president and to stand up for the constitution. a little-known senator from arizona, henry ashe herst, was the chairman of the senate judiciary committee. he deliberately delayed the f.d.r. court-packing proposal to a point where when it was finally call

is right that the supreme court does not have to supreme court justices.ongress could change that. that is where we had been for some time. great supremewhat court justices who were not lawyers. i don't want to miss state things. of super courtty justices have had a law degree. the underlying thought is that we could benefit from more diversity on the supreme court. that is an argument that could be made and judge garland --isense is very similar judge garland in a sense is very similar. he to harvard law school and as so many other justices did, one can make the argument that we need other types of life experiences. next on our democratic line is john from lincoln, nebraska. good morning, john. caller: hi. stohr, i just wanted to say that it is interesting that we anyway, i want to say garland is being proposed. if you remember back -- john roberts was a conservative. a very thoughtful person. they get down to ted cruz and those who other people toget in there and decide get in their and overturn roe versus wade. well that some .eople would be a 3/5 vote

supreme court. eminently qualified. >> he would be viewed as a safe choice. not some of the other judges and other lawyers that the president was considering, because again, garland is a well known figure. he's been on the court for a very long time. and that court of appeals and the district of columbia has sent a number of other justices to the supreme court, including chief justice roberts, clarence thomas, scalia, and others over the years. there's going to be a lot of concern about this choice by many people who are obama supporters. who wanted to see more diversity on the court. this selection is a white male. sri srinivasan would have been the first south asian selection on the court. there are a number of other african-americans, other wim who were under consideration. that's a concern. but again, garland is seen as a moderate. he is a name you know, if you will, and this is perhaps a signal that the president believes in putting forward this name, it will be hard for the republicans to main

this is what i can't imagine the former supreme court justice in the texas supreme court to come up with this theory that he has come up with. >> is anyone saying that he should be confirmed? >> anyone today that would be willing to come forward without reading what his cases are, without looking into his background, we heard a great speech and if i had been asked to vote after that i would have charged for it but that isn't my job. my job is to study the qualifications on the court behind me. it is an awesome responsibility and i think that all of us agree we should look at the record. we simply are saying do your job, take a look at this man. [inaudible] >> they are already feeling it. look at the numbers. the vast majority of the american people, democrats, independents and now even more than half the republicans. this is elementary school stuff. i don't know how my counterpart could come up with this. if i ask my caucus to go to the edge of the cliff and leap over it, they would toss me over first. [laughter] but that is what is happening now. [laughter] >> [inaudible] he has a motto

is he argued the case before the supreme court after he stepped down the supreme court. he represented puerto rico. it may have died right before the decision was handed down. and i correct? correct -- am i cor rect? this is really one of the last examples of someone stepping down and not serving as a senior justice. justice o'connor, justice souter, they no longer serve on the supreme court but they still actually sit from time to time on the courts of appeals. it has been a while since we had a justice who not only steps down but actually sort of retires from article three entirely, or is even in a position to argue the cases. : if you are new to the c-span call-in experience, and i know a number of you are watching for the first time tonight, we don't answer your call until just about time to put you on air. we have another hour ahead of us. lots more to tell you in the story of the slaughterhouse cases. time,eresting period of both civil war era and the reconstruction age, and what life was like in the south. byt, we're going to return video to the city of new orlean

supreme court justice peter daniel died in 1860. president buchanan set up the nomination in 18613 months after lincoln's election and only a month before lincoln's inauguration. multiple states that are devoted to succeed by that point. the nominee, jeremiah black received the vote on the senate floor. his nomination was rejected by a single vote. president lincoln ultimately nominated samuel miller, in ireland, mr. chairman to fill that seat. miller was confirmed in 1862. mr. chairman, that was the last time the senate cap the supreme court seat vacant for more than a year. so it took our nation tearing apart in that war with itself for the senate to keep a supreme court seat vacant for more than a year and that was the last time it happened. the supreme court seat has been kept vacant by sending an action for over a year since that time. so what is happening today is contrary to her committee's practices, even in divided government for election years. also, no nominee for the supreme court vacancy has been denied hearing since 19

there was no supreme court vacancy at the time. he was simply observing what might happen if there were to be a vacancy and while he did early in his speech some comments have now been used he also gave at the end of his speech a section i want to read. to quote directly i believe so long as the public continues to split this confidence between the branches, compromise is the responsible course for both the white house and the senate. therefore said ben sherman biden i stand by my position that if the president, then president bush, can cooperate with the senate to monitor his selection after consultation and his nominee may enjoy broad support as did justice kennedy and souter. let me make a concluding remark that what the end biden did speaks more loudly even than what he said. his record is chairman of the senate judiciary committee i believe is unmistakable. in case after case each held timely hearings even in the election year for 1988 had considered and confirmed for judicial nominees as late as september in a presidential el

to the institution of the supreme court? -- more republican step up and say let's have a fair hearing and vote. >> thank you very much. thank you everyone. we had a very good meeting today and i think you all now, we did not talk about me. this president takes his responsibility incredibly seriously and we are only asking our colleagues to do the same, to do their job. president that nominated two very distinguished people before their court and on the court. obviously, we conveyed a sense of urgency but careful urgency that the vetting that needs to happen, happen. we talked about our process and -- wect that i look back talked about the history here and respect for the constitution, respect for history, but there is also respect for the process of the united states senate. as someone who was a little newer than others on the judiciary committee, being a part of those judicial confirmations as something i will never forget. while we did not have every vote of the republicans and the end, i always was proud of the process, o

the reputation of the supreme court will inevitably suffer. faith in our justice system will inevitably suffer. our democracy will ultimately suffer as well. i have fulfilled my constitutional duty. now it's time for the senate to do theirs. presidents do not stop working in the final year of their term neither should a senator. i know that tomorrow the senate will take a break and recess for two weeks. my hope is that senators take time to reflect on the importance to our democracy, not what's expedient, not what's happening at the moment, what does this mean for our institutions, for our common life? the stakes, the consequences, the seriousness of the job we all swore an oath to do. and when they return, i hope they'll act in a bipartisan fashion. i hope they are fair. that's all. i hope they are fair, as they did when they confirmed merrick garland to the d.c. circuit, i ask that they confirm merrick garland now to the supreme court so that he can take his seat in time to fully participate in its work for the american people this fall. he

supreme court. and i'd like the record of this discussion to reflect that the term "shall" as defined in merriam webster dictionary in the relevant dictionary is, a, used to express a command or exhortation. and, b, used in laws, regulations or directives to express what is mandatory. for the president of the united states now under the constitution that we are all sworn to uphold has a mandatory duty. and i think it is important that he accomplish it and nominate a candidate. i would ask my colleagues to imagine if there were another mandatory duty of the president of the united states that this president refused to perform, imagine the calf -- cavalcade of republican senators to the studios of fox news to decry and condemn this president for that omission. this should be no different. the president must and will do his constitutional duty. if and when he does that, then the constitutional burden of duty moves from the president to the united states senate. and we will then have a choice whether to

supreme court. shall. not may. shall appoint. and the senate shall advise and consent to that nomination. so there are two constitutional responsibilities here. for the president to suggest a nominee and for the senate to act on that nominee. there have been instances in american history where argument could be made that that constitutional responsibility should be ignored or at least delayed. one that comes to mind dates back to 1942. on october 3 of 1942, a vacancy arose on the supreme court of the united states. on that day, justice names byrnes on the supreme court resigned his seat to become director of the office of economic stabilization in the roosevelt administration. on january 11, 1943, president roosevelt nominated wylie rutledge, a kentucky native and a former dean of the university of iowa college of law to fill that vacancy. at this point in 1943, the united states was fully engaged in the second world war. when the president sent up this nomination, battles were raging in europe, asia, africa and the atlantic and

a supreme court nominee put forward.pposition by the republicans in the senate already expressed. where do we go from here? we'll find out. >> both sides seem to be sticking to their guns on that one. >> they are. we'll see you back here in an hour. "outnumbered" starts now. harris: list than an hour ago president obama announced his choice to replace the late antonin scalia on the u.s. supreme court, setting into motion now a showdown with republicans, which could have huge implications in what is already a contentious presidential election year as you know. this is "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. here today, andrea tantaros, co-host of "after the bell" on fox business, melissa francis, democratic strategist and fox news contributor julie roginsky, and our #oneluckyguy, right on time, veteran trial attorney, fox news legal analyst, peter johnson, jr. pjj is outnumbered and we will lean on you heavily. >> please do. please do. harris: glad you're here. >> thank you so much. harris: we'll get to the news. now we have

don't play a partisan game with the supreme court. -- supreme court of the united states of america. its taos serious, it's too important -- it's too serious, it's too important. thank you very much. mr. jeffries: thank you for pointing out that this is a simple question for senate republicans. do your job. consistent with your obligations and responsibilities under article 2, section 2 of the united states constitution. the senate republicans' failure to act or consider any nominee put forth by the president of the united states of america is an abdication of responsibility, a dereliction of duty, and it would be a stunning act of legislative malpractice that undermines the rule of law, the presidency, the supreme court, the united states constitution, as well as the american people. i'm thankful now to be joined by someone who is a powerful voice for the voiceless here in the house of representatives, who is is -- who has ably served her constituents in northern california and consistently fought for a fair, equitable society, let me now yield to my good friend and distinguish -- m

clinton judge to supreme court.ate in a politically difficult time. and the president is walking a tightrope here and may have made the perfect political pick he could have made. still may not get him but i think it's the perfect pick. >> think he gets a vote and confirmation? >> our thanks to you both. much more right now on msnbc and nbc news.com. of course, there will be a full wrap on "nbc nightly news" with lester holt. i'm matt lauer with savannah guthrie. this has been a nbc news special report. >>> you just heard it. we have breaking news. president obama nominated merrick garland for the supreme court. he's the chief judge for the united states court of appeals for the district court. i'm barbara harrison. >> i'm keeping a close eye on the metro shut metro buses. >> right now, metro rail shut down as crews carefully respect third rail power cables. been inspecting. president obama as we just said just made a major announcement and listening to but now we are going to talk about metro rail and the shut down.

supreme court. it's a topic that has generated a lot of attention, and frankly, a lot of misinformation, especially since president obama named a nominee earlier this week. there are a couple of things that make this vacancy unique. first, the seat became vacant in the middle of an election year, literally as americans are casting their ballots to help choose the next president of the united states. second, the seat will determine the balance of the court for generations to come, as we're replacing the incomparable antonin scalia. justice scalia was widely admired and respected for defending the original intent of the constitution and its prescribed separation of powers, and he served as a critical check on president obama's executive overreaches. while the constitution allows the president to nominate a supreme court justice, our founding fathers also made sure to give the senate advise and consent authority, to help protect the integrity of our system of checks and balances. the senate can confirm

the reputation of the supreme court will inevitably suffer. faith in our justice system will inevitably suffer. our democracy will ultimately suffer as well. i have fulfilled my constitutional duty. now it's time for the senate to do theirs. presidents do not stop working in the final year of their term. neither should a senator. i know that tomorrow the senate will take a break and leave town on recess for two weeks. my earnest hope is that senators take that time to reflect on the importance of this process to our democracy. not what's expedient, not what's happening at the moment, what does this mean for our institutions? for our common life? the stakes, the consequences, the seriousness of the job we all swore an oath to do. and when they return, i hope that they'll act in a bipartisan fashion. i hope they're fair. that's all. i hope they are fair. as they did when they confirmed merrick garland to the d.c. circuit, i ask that they confirm merrick garland now to the supreme court. so that he can take his seat in time to fully participate i

the supreme court is. -- that's not a constitutionally created court. the supreme court is. let me make clear for folks who may be listening at home. what happens, and you studentsal know this, but what happens -- you students all know this, but what happens at the supreme court makes a significant difference in the everyday life f the american people. article 1 gives the power to congress to fix the number of justices. rom 1789 to 1866, the number waxed and waned between five and 10. but in 1869 the congress passed a law setting the court size at nine. and that law has not been changed since. as recently as 1992, i said on the floor of the senate, as pointed out to me, for me, that it was no big deal for the court to go through a period of 4-4 splits partly because the period wouldn't last very long. the exact number of justices was of less urgent concern. but i don't believe anybody in their right mind would propose permanently returning the court to a body of eight. or leaving one seat vacant not just for the rest of this year, but for potentially and likely the next 400

supreme court justices aren't elected. like all other federal judges they have a live time appointment. they're men to be above the fray. >> that turned into a whole term. are we in that same category now based on what the senate does or doesn't do with merrick garland? >> it's hard to say. we're not even there yet. we had it from republican senators. there's a big difference between them and there's many people scouring his opinions. 19 years is a long, long time to see whether he is as dangerously progressive as some on the right will have people say. it's not clear to me that he is. one thing that is clear is that he speaks genuinely about the constitution which is important no matter what political stripe you are and certainly his lifetime of political service, being a justice is really one of the ultimate ways that you can serve this republic. >> we're expecting to hear from senate majority leader mitch mcconnell in a moment on this very issue but already some statements coming out from some congressmen and senators t

a 4-4 supreme court for at least a year or longer. we haven't had a vacancy on the supreme court for over a year since the civil war tore this nation apart over 150 years ago. this letter that has been sent to the president and will be shared here makes it clear that the actions that are being called for by the republican majority are unprecedented, unprecedented. they never happened. the fact that they would refuse to have a hearing for a nominee to fill the scalia vacancy, a vote on that nominee, you only have to go back to 1988, not that long ago, when president ronald reagan, republican outgoing president in the last year of his presidency sent a name to the united states senate , then in control by a democratic majority to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. did the democrats in the senate in 1988 say to president reagan, oh, you're a lame duck, you're going to be gone in a year, we'll wait till after the election? no. they said the constitution requires you, president reagan, to send us a name and it requires us to advise and c

the supreme court is dangerously out of balance. we cannot afford to see justice stevens reese placed by another roberts or ginsburg replaced by an alito. given the track record of this president, at least i will recommend 10 my colleagues that we should not confirm a supreme court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances." i've also heard, don't look at the worded but the actions. senator reid, senator schumer, when he was here, senator barack obama, and senator biden have all filibustered supreme court nominees when they were senators. all four of them have. suddenly now this is a dangerous idea that will shut down justice and is completely unconstitutional and shouts of do your job come from the same senate leaders who block untold nominations from republican presidents and didn't allow amendments on basic bills. there's a lot of emotion in this body; i get that. there's a lot of politics in this process. i would hope to bring some facts to light and to turn down the hyperbole and all the rhetoric. so let me bring some basic

to the supreme court. because there are lots of qualified judges throughout the country. qualified people in political life who could be nominated and serve well. combination of factors. i got the sense that one of the reasons merrick garland is so emotional is he's been up to the brink twiet ce before. not it's happening. not only is he being nominated to the united states supreme court, it's happening when he altar. >> chuck todd is in the studio with us. prior to this announcement, so many on the republican side of the aisle said, no way. not now. no hearings. we don't want to have a meeting. i watched you going over your phone as this was happening. is there any crack in that? >> some crack. for instance, your mainstream conservative senator from missouri said he'd vote against the pick. he said nothing about hearings. other republican senators said, i'm sticking by my pledge of no hearings. wait until the election. for what it's worth, the rnc has fundraising and how to frame this argument. breaking,

about at the supreme court? >> guest: we heard earlier that michelle obama had reached out for the other first ladies to get data on how to be a good first lady. there's a lot of supreme court that's the overrule tradition, and you've got -- the oral tradition, and you've got to learn it from somebody. and sandra day o'connor taught a lot of it to ruth bader ginsburg. she went to her chambers and explained to her how to do the lighting so it would be a softer, more pleasant environment to work in and the etiquette of oral argument. there were many ways, unspoken ways in which o'connor wanted ginsburg to be a success becaus to conner wanted ginsburg to be a success. >> host: is ruth bader ginsburg going to miss her buddy? >> guest: she misses her buddy so much. after o'connor left in 2006, somebody asked ginsburg how she felt, and she said, "lonely." she really missed sandra dayid o'connor in a thousand ways, and here's a really cool way. she was senior by the time that, by the end of her term. she was very senio

we are one liberal justice away from the supreme court a racing the second amendment -- supreme court erasing the second amendment from the bill of rights. some would say, isn't that an exaggeration? the centers in heller was not that some gun control provisions are acceptable sometimes. he position was that the second amendment does not protect any individual rights to keep and bear arms whatsoever. that is only protects a "collective right of the militia," which is fancy lawyer speak for a nonexistent right. the government could make it a criminal offense for every person in this room to own a firearm and none of us would have any individual right to challenge that under the second amendment in court. the second amendment effectively goes away. we are one justice away. let's take another issue near and dear to everyone here. free speech and religious liberty. look at the hobby lobby case. the hobby lobby case where i filed an amicus brief supporting hobby lobby. 5-4 that thecluded government could not force a christian company to violate its faith in the belief of its founders. one

sam: stalling over the supreme court. politicians are pulling out all the stops, trying to freeze up the process. marco rubio: there comes a point in the last year of the president where you stop nominating. sam: but is it all political theater? we compare the claims to what's written in the constitution. plus, the high-stakes outcome hanging in the balance. the reason a split bench could tip the scale on issues that we've been arguing over for years. and speaking of scales. melinda jackson: the superdelegates really are there to allow the party to put their thumb on the scale at the end of the day. sam: superdelegates, flexing an outsized role in the election. we fact check claims party insiders could swing the presidential nomination. finally. sam: are we looking at a ticking time-bomb? sarah anzia: yes. sam: tension over california's pension deficit. more than a million workers all owed money california might not have. now, a recent report rings the alarm. we look for the answers and get to the truth in tonight's "real

. >>> the battle over the supreme court begins. president obama selects a nominee and republicans dig in on their refusal to consider him. this is special report. >>> good evening. welcome to washington. i'm bret baier. senate republicans are now on the clock. whether they are also on the spot is yet to be determined. president obama is nominating a widely respected moderate to fill the vacancy on the u.s. supreme court described by many that way. it is a pick designed in part to pressure g.o.p. senators to back down from their promise to reject any nominee in the president's final year. and that ignites the holy trinity of washington political battles. the executive branch versus the legislative branch over the judicial branch. kevin cork is at the white house with the intricate political angles involved but we begin with shannon bream and more on judge merrick garland. >> reporter: after weeks of waiting we finally have the name of the man that president obama hopes will replace the late justin antonin sscalia on the nation's hig

supreme court? according to my dear friend from iowa, he's saying president obama should be blamed for what those republicans on the supreme court did. this is alice in wonderland. this is alice in wonderland. i don't care what happens. president obama has to get blamed for it. we have a hurricane or something, must be president obama's fault. but this is about as far a stretch as i've ever heard that with the supreme court goes down in approval rating because of the five members -- i apologize for that -- because of the five members of the supreme court -- i apologize. i'm sure president obama is going to get blamed for that. if the approval rating of the court goes down because of the five republicans who constitute the majority of it, it is about as far-fetched as alice in wonderland to blame president obama for it. let's talk about facts. i like to talk about facts. it's the way democrats have handled republicans' nominees. my distinguished friend doesn't point out, even though it's been pointed

placedlighted that he sonia sotomayor on the supreme court. equally happy elena kagan is there and i don't want to second-guess the president's thinking on this but i have so much confidence in the first two nominees and justices he appointed that i think merrick garland will be just as good as his previous two picks. we have many, many years of vacancies to fill. we will undoubtedly have retirement's coming up very soon and i can only think that if it's a democrat who was elected willovember, that democrat take diversity into account. in fact, make diversity a priority, and democratic party -- as a democratic presidents have done in the past. you -- what do you make of some other comments from senate republicans that they would be willing to take up his nomination in the lame-duck -- session?tion ms. aron: i think if senators are going to play games, they ought to really think twice. they all to think about two things. one, the constitutional task ahead of them that asks them to a fair hearinge and fair consideration. two, each of us wakes up

but supreme court justices are appointed for life.hey're not making decisions based on campaign contributions. they're making them based on legal philosophy and in some cases, ideology. and for a long time now, the ideological bent of the court has lead our country in the wrong direction. especially when it comes to stacking the deck in favor of the already wealthy and powerful. if we're serious about fighting for progressive causes, we need to focus on the court who sits on it, how we choose them, and how much we let politics, partisan politics, dominate that process. and i can't think of a better place for this discussion than right here in madison , because these decisions will affect you. you know, before i was a senator from new york or a secretary of state, even before i was a wife or mother, for that matter, i was a lawyer. >> yes! >> i was drawn to the law for the same reason a lot of young people are. i put my faith in justice and fairness and i saw the profound impact that our justice systems has on people's lives, for bette