and the supreme court changed that. the justices on the supreme court matter to each and every one of our lives. that's why there's so much concern over president trump's nominee to fill the vacancy on the supreme court, judge brett kavanaugh. right wing groups like the heritage foundation and the federalist society have been working for decades setting the stage to pack our federal courts with i had -- ideologically invested opinions and they have engaged in these efforts. these two organizations have played the primary role in vetting tru vetting president trump's nominees to the supreme court. and these two organizations certainly expect to reflect his own ideological perspectives, which include overturning roe vs wade and repealing the affordable care act, the aca. they certainly expected neil gorsuch another name on their list to do the same when he got on the supreme court and on the short time that he's been on the court, justice gorsuch has not disappointed them. is it any wonder that millions of people are raisi

the citizens united case. that is what a supreme court decision can do. it can undermine american democracy and create a situation where the very wealthiest people in this country can buy politicians and influence legislation. mr. president, several years ago the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act, but the court also ruled that the medicaid expansion, as part of the affordable care act, had to be optional for states. i'm on the health, education, labor committee that helped write that bill, and i can tell you, there was almost no discussion beneficiary i don't recall any discussion -- there was almost no discussion, i don't recall any discussion -- about whether that legislation would apply -- elements that have legislation would apply to every state in this country. but the supreme court ruled that that was not the case. and they said that the decision of expanding medicaid was up to the states, and today we have 17 states in our country that still have not expanded medicaid. and what that means in english, in real terms

the circuit court. would not be his job on the supreme court. he gave a speech last year in which he said that congress and the president, not the courts, possess the authority and the responsibility to legislate. let me repeat that. congress and the president, not the courts, possess the authority and responsibility to legislate. now, the third thing that i expect to happen in this whole process is that we will vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination before the next supreme court session starts in october. it's what the american people want us to do. nbc news did a recent poll. they found that 62% of americans want us to vote on this nomination before the november election. only 33% said we should wait. but democrats want to delay. they want to delay the process. the american people are saying get on with it. it's early july now. we're going to work through the month of august. it gives us plenty of time to consider this nomination. when you look at the people serving on the supreme court today, you know, we typically spend about 66 days to confirm

and that is, the selection of a supreme court justice. i have often heard that other than matters of war and peace, this is the most important decision a president will make. a supreme court is entrusted with the safeguarding of the crown jewel of our republic, the constitution of the united states. 12 days ago, just as anthony kennedy informed me of his decision to take senior status on the supreme court, opening a new vacancy. for more than four decades, justice kennedy served our nation with incredible passion and devotion. i would like to thank justice kennedy for a lifetime of distinguished service. [applause] in a few moments i will announce my selection for justice kennedy's replacement. this is the second time i have been faced with this task. last year i nominated judge neil gorsuch to replace the late, great, justice antonin scalia. [applause] i chose justice gorsuch because i believed that he would be a faithful service of our constitution. we are honored to be joined tonight by justice antonin scalia's lovely wife, maureen. [ap

as a matter of fact the supreme court, the supreme court has adopted his reasoning in their opinion on 11 separate occasions and the 300 opinions that he has written are frequently cited by federal judges all across the country. perhaps judge cavanaugh's most well-defined characteristic is something he said monday evening when the president announced his nomination judge cavanaugh committed to be open-minded in the cases that come before him as a supreme court justice. open-minded. i think that's critical. his record backs up that commitment. he has a long and clear record of fairly applying the text of our constitution and our laws. there will be a lot to consider on the judge cavanaugh because he has such a long and very clear record of writing and the president mentioned his concise writing skills. that i look for experience, fairness and respect for the constitution as it is written. that's because the constitution aside, the legislative authority to us and it selected representative. they editorialize today, and i quote, cavanaugh has said that if confirmed to the supreme court hi

the supreme court will be in a position to make that history. justice kennedy's retirement handed president trump the opportunity to fulfill his campaign promise to shift the balance of power on the supreme court onto the far right on theseso issues. so the president dusted off a preapproved list of candidates for the high court of which lists prepared and presented to him by the ultraconservative federalist society. this is the same the federalist society assured president trump would satisfy his litmus test of overturning roe v. wade and a striking down critical health care protections. this is the same set of candidates for which the president selected meal fo and o seek the senate republicans stole when they violated all of the norms of the senate procedure by refusing even to hold a hearing on president obama's nominee. the federalist society promised that he would be. the dc circuit judge kavanaugh was on that list as well and with the president's nomination to the nation's highest court, the president has found another federalist society a

he criticized the supreme court when he upheld the law. is not a mutual arbiter, he's already made up his mind. he would not have been approved by the heritage foundation if he wasn't certain he would repeal the aca. judge kavanaugh has argued the trump administration could keep a young girl in federal custody to prevent her from obtaining healthcare and employer should be able to deny their employees access to contraceptive coverage. if judge kavanaugh feels that way about contraceptive rates, imagine what he feels about women's right to choose. i would make one other point about judge kavanaugh, his a deeply, deeply conservative justice way out of the mainstream. his written troubling decisions rejecting 90% of what americans want, common sense gun laws. he has challenge environmental protections in our clean-air clean water act would be at risk. it would make it far more difficult for regulations to exist to enforce those laws. here is the most amazing thing. he has gone so far to say that a president does not need to follow the law if

court for 12 years. it is often referred to as the nation's second-highest court to the supreme court because so many of the justices have come from that court in d.c. and it involves a lot of federal issues. a lot of interplay with congress. is theond thing commitment to constitutionalism. when we look at a judge, we want theee what the terms of nation's charter made it to mean. host: are you hoping he will be the vote that turns over roe v. wade? that roe v.oint is best example of judicial activism that you can imagine. how what justice white said on dissent was true. finding a right that hadn't been in their in the constitution before and imposing that on all 50 states. we think the judicial activism is not only misguided but is passe. judges tople look for look at what the constitution means. host: the americans united for we ares -- writing, ready know about him, dangerous to women. he lavished praise on the dissent of roe v. wade. forcing a young immigrant woman to fulfill her pregnancy. his career as a , pushing forrative gutting the protections of roe v. wade on the bench. guest: first of all, yi

judge kavanaugh has argued that the supreme court should question the constitutionality of the affordable care act. he openly criticize the supreme court when they upheld the law. he's no mutual arbiter, he has already made up his mind. he would not have been approved by the heritage foundation if they were not certain that he repealed the hba. he would not be approved by the federalist society if leonard leo wasn't certain he would repeal roe versus wade. >> judge kavanaugh has argued that the trump administration to keep a young girl in federal custody to prevent her from obtaining constitutionally prevented healthcare. he has argued that employers should be able to deny their employees access to affordable contraceptive coverage. judge kavanaugh feels that way about contraceptive rights, imagine what he feels about women's right to choose. another point, he is a deeply conservative justice way out of the mainstream. he's written troubling decisions about gun laws. he has undone environmental protections. he has challenge her clean-air clean water act would be at risk. it would make it

so they went up to the supreme court and the supreme court reversed in a 5-4 decision, written by justice thomas and joined by all of the courts conservatives. i think it's interesting neither these first amendment cases i'm talking about were written by justice kennedy, even though i think you can see his handy work on them in all the precedents that led up to them. on the license notice, the court began by throwing cold water on the idea there's such a thing as a lower center of professional speech. they didn't decide it, because they said they didn't have to, because it didn't pass interimmediate scrutiny. look, we've never really said there's such a thing as professional speech that is subject to lower standard of review. this doesn't fall into either of them. and oh, by the way, you know, professional speech or the state -- can cause all sorts of problems. so you know, it is a barn burner to site those two things. also by the way, it's hard to decide what is covered by professional speech. include barbers, for example. and then it went through the two examples of professional speech

a law clerk on the supreme court for supreme court justice kennedy. he is one of the preeminent legal minds of his generation. in 2006, the senate confirmed him to the d.c. circuit. he has compiled an extensive record on the federal bench. he has published more than 300 opinions and earned considerable praise for his clear writing and reasoning. long kavanaugh has built a and distinguished record. it paints a clear picture of how he would conduct himself as a member of the nation's highest court. it reflects a firm understanding that judges must interpret laws as they are written. we do not choose them to make policy, pick favorites, or craft novel legislation from the bench. some of our colleagues and others on the left seem to see the role of judges very differently. president obama summed up this alternate view well when he was running for president. he explained that he sought to appoint judges who harbored particular empathy for certain parties and certain cases. well, that's great if you happen to be the party in the case whom the judge likes. no

his credentials is well suited for the supreme court. he excelled as an undergraduate and law student at yale and clerked for justice kennedy, the man he would replace, along being a clerk for the federal appeal court judges. he served in a critical position in president george w. bush's administration, and beyond his resume is respect and effectiveness. he is highly regarded by his colleagues on the federal judiciary, and i think that says a lot about his potential and his character in terms of potential to become a supreme court justice. he is also impressed others over his long and very prestigious career. we saw a wonderful family on monday night. you can tell they are very proud of their dad and their mom. i was really honored to have the opportunity to meet all of them along with judge kavanaugh's parents. he's been very effective. as a matter of fact, the supreme court -- this supreme court has adopt his reasoning in their opinions on 11 separate occasions, and the 300 opinions that he has written are frequently cited by federal ju

justice it is the case that an inferior court judge is banned by what the supreme court says it would be astonishing if any appellate judge of an inferior court tried to in effect overrule the supreme court once you get out of supreme court all bets are off and the the belief that what judge kavanaugh says about precedent is. something you could take to the bank to get a loan on is just silly he's a very smart guy he will say the right things in order to make it possible for collins. to vote for him but quite frankly the this is not a court that exhibits great respect for precedent and it's not a certainty i agree that was said before if it's not a sure thing he could surprise us i also agree that chief justice roberts is key on this but if you were a betting person it would be for wish to put a lot of money on the survival of roe ok. matthew you mentioned before that there's no filibuster that even if. even if cavanagh does get the votes he needed we saw in two thousand and sixteen obama's nomination judge merrick garland was blocked by the republicans can there not be some sor

, the supreme court has. he has authored multiple dissents that ultimately prevailed in the supreme court. that ought to be complimented, not condemned. he has taught courses at harvard, yale, and georgetown. i would have preferred if he had taught some courses at brigham university and the university of utah, but i guess that was too far west, but you can't knock harvard, yale, and georgetown. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: it bears to mention that liberal and conservative justices alike have hired his former clerks which address -- chosen the respect he has across the ideological spectrum. truly, madam president, there is no one more qualified and more prepared to serve on the supreme court than brett kavanaugh, and the funny thing is most people know that, including my friends on the other side. that's one reason they are afraid to have him on the court. i speak from experience on this. i'm the former ch

it goes to the supreme court on that basis. south dakota says bella cost is basically legal formalism. it's when there was rigid, formal rules for thinking about the dormant commerce clause. the supreme court had moved away from that into something more flexible in a case called complete auto. it recently was the touchstone for dormant commerce clause. jurisprudence asked what effect it will have. will the burden interstate commerce, or discriminate against that of state businesses, as opposed to the rigid is there a physical presence requirement or not? in quill, the supreme court ballastdged that the decision is an outlier, in light of complete auto, but it is president. the supreme court said they will not overrule their presidents -- resurgence. --precedents. it has been several decades, in several decades, a lot of things have happened. , the abilityerce for retailers to collect taxes using software that is really easy, as opposed to the old days. say say you don't have to quill was wrongly decided, just say that the suprem

many elements can now go before the supreme court. the elements are everything to can a president be criminally indicted? can a president pardon himself? cannot president and an investigation? admits all of these issues and more coming from the supreme court, we have a president who is picking a judge who would fit in the balance of such a decision. the judge she has picked, judge kavanaugh was the only person amidst all of these individuals on his much talked about list, the only person who clearly stated he will give you immunity, i will be your shield. these are things that judge kavanaugh has written. a sitting president should never be criminally indicted. the president take what should have absolute discretion about whether and when he can be independently investigated. also to decide who does the investigating. something else he has written is the president and attorney general rather than a court should define and monitor independent counsel jurisdiction. finally, he has written any special prosecutor should be removable by the

and justice anthony kennedy on the supreme court. he's a doj veteran having spent time in the criminal division, the office of legal counsel and also in the solicitor general's office. john has argued nine cases before the supreme court. among his many awards, he has been praised by chambers usa which described him as phenomenal, a brilliant writer and a much loved and widely respected lawyer who is quick on his feet. next to john is willie jay, a partner at goodwin proctor. a graduate of harvard law school and before that he clerked in the ninth circuit and justice antonin scalia on the supreme court. he also spent time at doj and has argued 16 cases before the supreme court. and like john elwood, he has received numerous awards and also described by chambers usa as, quote, a rocket scientist who is spectacular brief writing and keen and analytical mind mark him out as a rising star at the appellate bar. so now i'll resume my seat and we'll start talking about the cases. so neil, let's start with you and get right to the travel ban c

the supreme court, their decision in my mind is that that. that's it. it, justrned it's not re andother bunch in thei they overturn the decision. they are not the great supreme court that we felt we had. on one hand, conservatives do feel very defensive about this. you would argue that wouldn't see the u.s. senator questioning somebody and asking about your muslim faith or about your hindu beliefs and that would be considered politically incorrect and beyond the pale. i think in the case of a christian somehow it's ok. they see that is a double standard. on the other hand, i think you can say look, i think people everything about you could impact your world view and how you might end up making rulings. isn't that fair game? i think it's pretty interesting question. host: announcer: justice anthony kennedy's retirement brings a significant change to the supreme court. follow events on c-span. president trump will announce his choice for the supreme court monday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern. we will have live coverage of the president's remarks, and afterwar

the most profound responsibilities of the president of the united states and that is the selection of a supreme court justice. i have often heard that other than matters of four and please, -- matters of war and peace, this is the most important decision a president will make. the supreme court is interested -- is entrusted with the safeguard of the crown jewel of our republic the constitution of , the united states. 12 days ago, justice anthony kennedy, and for me of his me of his decision to take senior status on the supreme court, opening a new vacancy. for more than four decades, justice kennedy served our nation with incredible passion and devotion. i would like to thank justice kennedy for a lifetime of distinguished service. [applause] >> in a few moments, i will announce my selection for justice kennedy's replacement. this is the second time i have been faced with this desk. -- this task. last year, i nominated judge neil gorsuch to replace the late great justice antonin scalia. [applause] i chose justice gorsuch because i knew that he, just like justice scalia, would be a faithful servant of

we have media analyst saying the supreme court is about the swing far right. let's watch. >> drumstick politely shift the supreme court further to the right. the folks at on the list prepared by the federalist society represent the far right end. these are the folks that will be hard for democrats to support. >> you are worried about the supreme court's independent and it's a risk that sounds like becoming a branch or armor the administration. >> i have never seen a president of the united states make himself a puppet and choose from a group of right-wing fringe ideologues. liz: chuck schumer saying the president has not consulted with the feds to go for his nominees. was your action this idea that the president is a puppet of far right groups? >> i think that's absurd. the president came up with a novel idea. you think i'm just a new york city developer? i will tell you how am i going to choose my next supreme court justice and i publish my list with 11 names on a per the public accept it. by the time for such came along it had 20 names on it. after gorsuch's

the district court enjoined it. the ninth circuit court enjoined it. the solicitor general asked for that, and the supreme court granted it in may with an argument set for october 10th. . but two weeks before on september 24th, the travel ban 2 and travel ban, three was introduced, and the solicitor general told the supreme court that case is now moot. and it should be removed from the docket, which the supreme court did. the travel ban three was then challenged. i challenged it for the state of hawaii along with the mosque in hawaii and some other individual plaintiffs. that was again enjoined by the district court, enjoined by the circuit court, but in a 5-4 decision, the supreme court upheld that travel ban, at least at this preliminary stage. in terms of litigation. and so, you know, there's basically two kinds, two issues in the travel ban. one is statutory and one is constitutional. the statutory issue is basically , it breaks down into two different things. number one, there is a broad statute, 1182-f. and did congress give the president the power essentially under that to enact something like the

and the solicitor general told the supreme court, that case is now moot. and it should be removed from the docket, which the supreme court did. the travel ban 3 was then challenged. i challenged it for the state of hawaii along with the mosque in hawaii and some other individual plaintiffs. that was again enjoined by the district court, enjoined by the circuit court, but in a 5-4 decision, the supreme court upheld that travel ban, at least at this preliminary stage. in terms of the litigation. and so, you know, there's basically two kinds, two issues in the travel ban. one is statutory and one is constitutional. the statutory issue is basically breaks down to two different things. number one, there is a broad statute. 1182-f. and did congress give the president the power essentially under that to enact something like the travel ban? here's what it says, whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the united states would be detrimental to the interest of the united states, he may by proclamation and for such perio

we know that the supreme court of the united states is not a game. tonight, trump and his allies will try to eliminate the last checks on the president by ramming through a judge who will strike down roe versus raid -- roe versus wade and cater to corruption. we cannot let this stand. brett kavanaugh will bring -- will destroy all this country's work in the supreme court. brett kavanaugh has a terrible record that should disqualify him. he will be a rubber stamp for donald trump. he will detain immigrants and force women to carry children against their own well. underminingctive in the ada and he has shown a shocking indifference to presidential immunity and basically will give donald trump a free pass with the mother investigation. -- is at is a risk risk with the kavanaugh nominee. it's an outrageous patterson power grab against women and all americans by historically unpopular president and we cannot let it happen. they must fall the mcconnell rule and we must ensure that we kavanaugh.t all our rights are at stake. roe v. wade, health care, democr

the d.c. circuit court of appeals. we know he would mean to the supreme court. on behalf of the millions of americans who are counting on this court to protect the freedoms, to protect our union and to protect this constitution, the senate judiciary committee is ready to act. >> this nominee, like other recent republican nominees to the supreme court, has had to run a special interest obstacle course, moderated by the federalist society. as a committee we need to understand what assurances were made to the special interests as this nominee ran that obstacle course that put him at the top of the list. that is a vitally important question. you may say it is improbable that we are in a country where that question would need to be asked, but you can look at two dozen 5-4 decisions, partisan decisions of the united states supreme court that inevitably and predictably decide in favor of republican political interests at the polls and with dark money, and predictably decide in favor of big republican corporate interest, both to the candidate of their employees and again

judge kavanaugh has argued that the supreme court should question the constitutionality of the affordable care act. he openly criticized the supreme court when they upheld the law. he is no neutral arbiter. he has already made up his mind. he would not have been approved by the heritage foundation if they want certain that he would repeal the aca. he would not have been approved by the federalist society's leonard leo was not certain he would repeal roe v. wade. judge kavanaugh has argued that the trump administration to keep a young girl in federal custody to prevent her from obtaining constitutionally protected health care. he has argued that employers should be able to deny their employees access to affordable contraceptive coverage. if judge kavanaugh feels that way about contraceptive rights, imagine what he feels about a woman's right to choose. i would make one other point about judge kavanaugh. he is a deeply, deeply conservative justice way out of the mainstream. written troubling decisions rejecting something 90% of americans want -- common sense gun laws. undone environmental p

this must not become the next justice on the supreme court. what that will take is all of us fighting as hard, as long as we can. [cheers and applause] our voices, our voices, our stories are what will make the difference in this nomination. we could do everything we can to fight back, to speak out, to never give up, to never give in. it's about our values. it's about our country. it's about the history of this nation. and we will fight. we will not give up. we will not grow weary. we will not give in. tell your story. tell everyone you know and love why you care so much. whether it's union rights or immigrant rights or muslim rights, fighting against this president's coercive and very harmful agenda to so many americans, tell your story. be heard. do not give up. we must convince the senate to do the right thing and stand against kavanaugh. stand against kavanaugh. stand against kavanaugh. stand against kavanaugh. stand against kavanaugh. stand against kavanaugh! stand against kavanaugh! stand against kavanaugh! stand against kavanaugh! our ne

the district courts and the court of appeals. but we are at an extraordinary decision point for the united states supreme court, the highest court in the land, a branch of government that can shape the law and culture of this country for generations to come. when we are called upon to consider a supreme court nominee, ordinarily we have to read tea leaves. ordinarily we have no way to know with certainty the values and beliefs that someone will bring to the court. ordinarily presidents make every effort to persuade us that their nominees were picked on the basis of merit, not ideology. and so ordinarily we look forward to hearing what nominees tell us about their beliefs and values since they are unknown when we first hear their name. mr. president, we live in times that are the opposite of ordinary. these are not ordinary times. we live in a time when there is ongoing right before our eyes an extraordinary assault on the rule of law in this country coming from the president of the united states on down. we live at a time when the courts are so critically important to our democracy because they are a bulwark for fundamental right

the like. south dakota manufactured this supreme court case. they said we think that doesn't make any sense in the age of the internet so they had their legislature pass a law which obviously was directly contrary to binding supreme court precedent at the time and the law said if you engage in more than $100,000 in transactions and sales to folks in south dakota you have to pay -- the company has to collect the sales tax. >> so it's obviously challenged right away by retailers on the ground that it goes to the supreme court on that basis. now south dakota basically says that the 1967 decision is basically legal formula. so it's when there was ridged formal rules for thinking about the dormant commerce clause but the supreme court really moved away from that and to something more flexible in a case called complete auto and that basically was the touch stone for dormant commerce clause is it going to burden interstate commerce or discriminate as opposed to the ridged is there a physical presence requirement or not. and in 1992, the supreme court a

foi’ status on the supreme court, opening a new vacancy. status on the supreme court, opening a new vacancy. for more than four decades, justice kennedy served our nation with incredible passion and devotion. i would like to thank justice kennedy for a lifetime of distinguished service. applause. ina few in a few moments, i will announce my selection forjustice kennedy's replacement. this is the second time i have been faced with this task. last year, i nominated judge i have been faced with this task. last year, i nominatedjudge neil gorsuch to pay —— to replace the late great justice antonin scalia. applause. i chose justice gorsuch because he, just like justice scalia would be a faithful servant of our constitution. we are honoured to be joined tonight by justice constitution. we are honoured to be joined tonight byjustice scalia's allotted wife, maureen. —— beloveds. bothjustice scalia both justice scalia and justice gorsuch were appointed because they knew that the best defence of our judicial branch in immune from political prejudice,

and improve the lives of women and girls and we know that the role that the court place could not be more critical and on the line with the supremeacancy. the supreme court's decisions have shaped so many of our fundamental constitutional rights and legal protection from theright to make personal sessions about reproductive health to our health care coverage to equal opportunity in the workplace and in schools and this vacancy puts all of that at risk. as you have heard, the president has promised to only appoint roe v.who would overturn wade and dismantle the affordable care act. we need to take him at his word. it will not be enough to accept vague references to following precedent and edition to the standard my partners have outlined on roe v. wade, any of the nominees have a deep burden to show that they are not fulfilling trump's promise to dismantle the affordable care act. the know that the affordable care act has dramatically changed the landscape of women's health care for the better. the aca has enabled women to attain affordable health care, it has made sure that women's preventive health care is allowed 62.4as million

expect, we have to prepare for the fact that this case may move from the district court to the appellate court and eventually to the supreme court. and if it does, this seat that we are about to debate will likely will potentially be the deciding vote as to whether americans in this country who have preexisting conditions will continue to be able to get health care. and so i just wanted to come to the floor, as we start to set the table for this conversation, to make very clear what the stakes are. the trump administration has taken the exceptional position of arguing against people with preexisting conditions saying that congress cannot, by law, protect people with preexisting conditions. president trump, as a candidate, made it very clear that his priority was to put justices on the court who would correct for the fatal flaw of john roberts. he identified that fatal flaw as john roberts defense of the affordable care act. he made a promise that he wouldn't make that decision again. he would not put somebody on the court who would vote to uphold parts of the affordable care act. you've got to take the president at his wor

horgan i say show in opposes the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. the two reporters will be asking her questions this week is siobhan hughes, from the wall street journal and mark, who covers the supreme court for the associated press. significance of this nomination, what is it feel monumental than the nomination of neil gorsuch. >> because it is. he is being considered for a seat held by judge anthony kennedy who on very significant issues, set himself apart from some of his conservative colleagues on the court. lgbtq issues, on juvenile rights. he was considered to be the swing on the supreme court. neil gorsuch when he was being considered for the supreme court was up for a hard right conservatives seat, antonin scalia of. so anthony kennedy was more in the middle, so this has taken on much, much greater significance. it has also taken on greater meaning, i think, because the president has laid out very specifically -- in fact, when he was running for office, that if elected, he would appoint an individual who met two very specific criteria: one,

his credentials is well suited for the supreme court. he excelled as an undergraduate and law student at yale and clerked for justice kennedy, the man he would replace, along being a clerk for the federal appeal court judges. he served in a critical position in president george w. bush's administration, and beyond his

calling in reference to the supreme court. d like to read alexander hamilton us federalist papers statement. the concept of judicial review is for the supreme court to ensure the will of the people who will of the legislator. even when it comes to abortion issues there's no specific law out there. just like right now trump is trying to sign legislature and i think the supreme court was designed to help break that. to separate those branches. deadlocked when it comes to this row versus wade i --'t think it's fair host: we will let you go. guest: i hear an argument in your room. host: that is actually something -- guest: that is something this nominee believes strongly in. the three branches of government how it is so vital for them to know what their powers are and what they are not. when one oversteps the other we create great civil unrest and in no other issue could you see that in stronger highlights in the issue of abortion. when the supreme court justices made up a constitutional right and basically legislated from the benc

but, the same was true on the supreme court level. s, judge merrick garland was supremely qualified to sit on the supreme court and was president obama's choice to sit on the supreme court. but a year prior to the 2016 election, the g.o.p. decided that it was not the time for a udge to be appointed, when a federal election was going to take place within a year. now, one could say the same thing about the fact that we have a midterm election that's coming up in 2018. but oh, no. we don't get the same courtesy. this is politics before people and it's unacceptable and we should not take it sitting down. that is why i am very happy that this, the congressional black caucus, -- congressional black caucus tonight, under the leadership of the gentleman from pennsylvania, is talking about the stacking of the supreme court and it's important to all americans. i can speak firsthand how important the court system was to the civil rights and voting rights movements of america. you know, as a daughter of selma, alabama, and as the first black congr