but today, as united states senator has a duty to speak when the united states senate violates the united states constitution. as a i have a duty for the judiciary committee considers the nominee, especially someone to fill a vacancy in the supreme court. >> .. is not personal, it's professional, and it's substantive. the senior senator from iowa outlined that job himself when he assumed the chairmanship of the judiciary committee. when he took over as chairman, he promised republicans, and i quote -- "to restore the senate to the deliberative body the founders intended." i mean, listen to that. that's what he said -- "to restore the senate to the deliberative body the founders intended." that's a quote. he said he took the responsibility, another quote, -- "of vetting the nominees for life-time appointments to the federal judiciary very seriously." close quote. the senior senator from iowa >> >> the voters he is the first chair of this important committee to refuse to lead, conduct hearings for a supreme court nomination. to refuse the meeting or the hearing so other people know how impo

he helped me pass landmark legislation as a freshman senator, but today as united states senator have the duty to speak, provide advice and consent. as a senator, i have a duty to demand, especially to fill a vacancy in the supreme court.court. senate judiciary chair, senior senator from iowa has a job to do. my criticism is not personal the professional and substantive. the senior senator from iowa outlines that he assumed the chairmanship. promising republicans that i will restore the senate to the deliberative body the founders intended. that is what he said. to tosaid. to restore the senate to the deliberative body that founders intended. he said he took the responsibility of vetting the nominees for a lifetime appointments very seriously. the senior senator from iowa is failing the commitment that he made himself, restoring the senate to deliver the body of the founders intended. the founders of people that wrote the constitution. first chair, this important committee to take the unprecedented step of refusing to meet,meet, conduct hearings, or hold a vote on supreme court nomina

that is why we have come to the floor of the united states senate to say the united states senate must do his job. it has a constitutional duty. it has no discretion whether it should wait to a politically opportune time to do its job, whether it is hearing from the base politically, it should do its job when the president submits his nominee. what may be most regrettable about the debate it demonstrates political machination, game blaming that threatens the supreme court is an institution, endangers credibility and trust. the supreme court has no armies or police force. they depend on the enforceability of decisions on credibility and trust, and when it is demeaned in the eyes of the public, when it stature is diminished, when it is dragon do the political graph of a partisan debate and partisan paralysis, it's credibility and trust and it stature are vastly diminished, and its powers and institutions are endangered. i am dismayed that these machinations tend to diminish and mean this institution where work for a year as a law clerk, where argued cases cause attorney general, where wa

and gentlemen, please welcome our honored guests, members of the united states house of representatives, members of the united states senate and the speaker of the united states house of representatives. >> ladies and gentlemen, the speaker of the united states house of representatives, the honorable paul ryan. [ applause ] >> good afternoon. i want to welcome all of you to the capitol visitor center. today we're honoring the foot soldiers of the 1956 voting rights marches. last year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary. but we felt that the foot soldiers' contribution to our country was so great that they deserve the highest honor in our possession, the congressional gold medal. so i am very glad to share this special day with you. we're also in the presence of some truly great americans. like my friend and colleague, congressman john lewis. [ applause ] we're also honored to be here with reverend f.d. reese and a man that i represent in wisconsin, paul simpson from elkhorn, i want to ask them and all of our living honorees to please stand right now and be recognized. [ applause ] i also want to thank the alabama delegatio

but today as a united states senator, i have a duty to speak when the republican senate refuses to follow its constitutional obligations to provide advice and consent on the president's supreme court nomination. as a senator, i have a duty to demand that the judiciary committee considers important judicial nominees, especially, especially someone to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. as senate judiciary chair, the senior senator from iowa has a job to do. my criticism, i repeat, is not personal, it's professional, and it's substantive. the senior senator from iowa outlined that job himself when he assumed the chairmanship of the judiciary committee. when he took over as chairman, he promised republicans, and i quote -- "to restore the senate to the deliberative body the founders intended." i mean, listen to that. that's what he said -- "to restore the senate to the deliberative body the founders intended." that's a quote. he said he took the responsibility, another quote, -- "of vetting the nominees for life-time appointments to the federal judiciary very seriously." close quote. the se

that is why we have come to the floor of the united states senate to say the united states senate must do its job. it has a constitutional duty. it has no discretion whether it should wait to a politically opportune time to do its job, whether it should hear from its base politically. it should do its job when the president submits his nominee. what may be most regrettable about this debate and about the majority leadership's refusal to have a hearing and a vote on the president's nominee is that it demonstrates political machinations, game blaming that threatens the supreme court as an institution. it endangers its credibility and trust. the supreme court has no armies or police force. it depends for the enforceability of its decisions on its credibility and trust. and when it is demeaned in the eyes of the public, when its stature is diminished, when it is dragged into the political morass of a partisan debate and partisan paralysis, its credibility and trust and its stature are vastly diminished and it's -- its powers as an institution is endangered. i am dismayed that these machina

this war when they became a united states senator. this will epitomize the work in the united states as a senator. whatever they may have accomplished will be secondary. remember, our job is here to vote. that is what we saw to do. the constitution is clear on this issue. so the stakes should be higher for senator grassley than the other republican senators. why? because as judiciary chairman sen. grassley presides over on of theone of the most important and prestigious committees and the entire senate. this is been the case for 200 years. one of the original 11 standing committees, that is how long the committee has been in operation.

edwards: in maryland we will become a majority minority state very soon and the fact when senator mikulski ran for the united states senate there were no women who had been elected on their own without inheriting the seat from their husband. she was the first one. now the senate is 20% women. there hasn't been an african-american in the united states senate since carl mosley braun 23 years ago and i think it matters who's at the table. when i'm reason i work to see that after-school is upers and nutritious dinners were served to children all across our congressional district. any of our colleagues could have done the same thing, but because i was at the table, that made a difference. make a difference when it comes to talking about and working on equal pay for equal work as a woman who understands what it means to work for unequal pay for equal work. it makes a difference who's at the table because it matters what you put on the table. scott: kai jackson. kai: thank you, candidates. we appreciate you being here. this deals with incarceration. in the wamu debate, you said it's because of legislators like mr.

>> i cannot imagine a republican majority in the united states senate with want to confirm in a lame duck session a nominee opposed by the national rifle association, the national federation of independent business that. s small businesses that have never taken a position on a supreme court appointment before, they are opposed to this guy i cannot imagine that a republican majority senate even if it were soon-to-be a minority would want to confirm a judge that would move the court dramatically to the left. that is nature going to happen. >> senator mcconnell thank you

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 the principle of doing our job. that's why we are here. not only does judge garland have stellar credentials and experience, he was confirmed as chief judge of the d.c. court of appeals 76-23. seven of those republican votes came from members currently serving. so, we stand with working

matter, we all know president obama yesterday exercised his authority under the united states constitution to suggest to the senate a nominee for the supreme court of the united states. during the announcement, president obama spent time talking about the serious task of selecting a supreme court nominee, particularly one to succeed a legal lion like justice scalia, whom the president appropriately called one of the most influential jurists of our time. his point was that the supreme court of the united states, the highest court in the land, is an institution of unparalleled importance, and what happens at the supreme court affects the lives of every american. so lifetime appointments to this most powerful court in the land should not be taken lightly. as the president put it, our supreme court justices have been given the role as the final arbiters of american law for more than 200 years. of course today they consider and answer some of the most pressing and challenging controversies and questions of our time. agree with what the president said to that point. we all know that the supreme court is critical to our

to this institution of the united states senate. i really call on the members of the senate judiciary committee, which i am proud to serve on, to step back and reassess the letter they signed two weeks ago. it was a letter accepting senator mcconnell's strategy, saying that they would not do their job. they would in fact walk away from their job, walk away from their constitutional responsibility. i would hope that they would realize that they are leaving a mark in history which is indefensible, a mark in history which is unprecedented and one which sadly will leave the supreme court with only eight justices. the american people have spoken. they have chosen a president. the president has accepted his constitutional responsibility. the senate under republican leadership can do no less. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. a senator: thank you, mr

these are the words the senior united states senator from iowa, senator grassley, once described the way the supreme court nomination should be considered by the senate. fair, respectful, deliberate and thorough. in june 2010, he said something more. and i quote -- "i've always been of the opinion that the senate needs to conduct a comprehensive careful review of supreme court nominees. it is important that the nominee get a fair, respectful and also deliberative hearing. that same month he also said in june 2010 -- quote -- "i'm committed to ensuring that this process is fair and respectful, but also thorough. the constitution tasks our senate with conducting a competent review of the nominee's record and qualifications. fair, respectful, and thorough." i don't think refusing to meet with a nominee, refusing to hold a hearing for a nominee, refusing to hold a vote on a nominee is fair, respectful, deliberative and certainly not thorough. he was not yet chairman of the judiciary committee when the senior senator from iowa made those comments. but here's what he said in addition to th

[crowd booing] >> number one absentee record in the united states senate. he will doesn't show up to

their independence even against the wishes of senate majority leader alvin barkley, long-time united states senator. but he became vice president later. imagine that. he was senate majority leader. he was from kentucky. imagine that. judiciary committee chair standing up to a majority leader from kentucky. the accomplishments of these powerful chairs and many others are the historical models against which the senior senator from iowa will be measured. if he keeps his current obstruction, history will not be kind to his tenure as chairman of the committee.

united states constitution, has a vacancy. and it is the obligation of the united states senate to fill that vacancy by considering whatever nominee president arack obama sends forward. members of the united states senate take an oath of office to faithfully discharge their responsibilities. and when you look at article 2, section 2 of the united states constitution, which gives the president the power to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the supreme court, it's the senate that must consider that nominee. and since the early part of the 20th century, there have been eight different supreme court nominees who have been voted on in an election year. six of them actually were confirm bud all eight of them received a hearing. and so for the life of me, i can't figure out why senator mitch mcconnell think he is can any way with holding nomination up without even the slightest bit of consideration. so we're going to explore that here today and we'll be joined by any number of distinguished members of the house of representatives and the congressional black caucus but let me proceed by yielding to my good friend and my colleague, my

as senators, we raise our hand and take a solemn oath to defend the constitution of the united states and faithfully discharge the duties of our office. what are the core constitutionally mandated duties of serving as a united states senator is to advise and consent on supreme court nominees, and it is not one that we can take lightly. mr. president, we are fortunate that many of our nation's forefathers were prolific writers who left us reams of documents that now help us understand the debates and the discussions that led to our current system of government. our nation's fourth president and the youngest member of the constitutional convention, james madison, kept a record of the debates that occurred during those formative months of our nation in the summer of 1787. i urge my colleagues to revisit this record as they consider how to proceed with our nation's next supreme court nominee. on june 4, 1787, james wilson of pennsylvania, a signatory of the declares of independence and a member of the continental congress, argued that justices should be appointed by the executive branch a

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 -- my good friend, the distinguished gentlelady from california, representative barbara lee. ms. lee: thank you. let me thank the gentleman from new york for yielding but also for your tremendous leadership, you and congresswoman beatty from ohio really have sounded the alarm, beat the drum and really brought to

it is the behavior of a petty kangaroo court, not of the united states senate. and it threatens to deny justice to millions of americans in the name of petty politics. it is time for the senate to do its job as every senate before us has done. i'm not asking my colleagues to support the nominee. that's a matter of conscience for each of us. but what is unconscionable is that the majority if it keeps its word will have no hearing, will hold no vote, and refuse even the courtesy of a meeting with the president's nominee. and speaking of doing our job, mr. president, in view of the seriousness of the court's nomination, we should reconsider the majority's proposed seven-week summer recess for the senate. in july and august alone, we are barely in session for eight days. unlike our responsibility to vote on supreme court nominees, the senate's schedule is not enshrined in the constitution. it is set by the majority. and in that connection, i'm glad to invite any of my colleagues to my office to watch a video of a constituent of mine whom i met two weeks ago in pueblo

after winning an election to the united states senate and feeling like you are on top of the world, you are immediately escorted to the basement. when hillary clinton was elected senator from new york, she was still living in the white house. her husband had a couple months left in his term. she would leave the white house in the morning to go down to the basement office with no windows. everybody starts out the same. there are numerous committee rooms in this building. the room we're in right now, the room that was designed for the most special events, was originally an auditorium. it sloped down with a stage behind it. this is where people would come to make announcements, where conferences would be held, where large meetings would take place. then, in the 1970's, senator frank church began to investigate problems with the cia and fbi. this was the first congressional investigation into united states and intelligence operations. the material they were collecting was so secret they had to be in an absolutely secure place. this auditorium was converted for that purpose. it was turned in

mostly true politifact wipe sot trump from has the no. 1 absentee record in the united states (senate), he doesn't show up to vote)) that's a claim donald trump is once again hammering home as the gop heads to marco rubio's home state of florida for next week's primary. sot katie sanders @ 1:04:40 ((if you look at the past year, marco rubio has the most truant voting record in the united states senate)) but when looking at career numbers.. rubio actually ties ted cruz in missed votes. because trump didn't specify a time period with his statement.. politifact rating trump's claim as... mostly true ((jamison on cam)) rubio and cruz missing 15 percent of their career votes might not be a real vote swayer. politifact pointing out.. president obama missed 24 percent of his votes in his short stint as a illinois senator. i'm jamison uhler.. we'll see you next week for another politifact fact check. the republicans are just minutes away from their debate. and once again - we'll be fact- checking the contenders and what they have to say.see our findings tonight on nine on a north carolina chi

candidates reflecting the same extremism that's been nursed along for seven years right here in the united states senate are on the verge of winning the republican party's nomination for president. now, republicans senators must make a decision because here's the deal. extremists may not like it but barack obama won the presidency in 2008 by nine million votes. he won re-election in 2012 by five million votes. there were no recounts and no hanging chads. no stuffing the ballot box or tampering with voting machines. no intervention by the united states supreme court. no. president obama was elected the legitimate president seven years ago, and he's the legitimate president right now. if it is true that some republican senators are finally ready to stand up to the extremism that denies the legitimacy of this president and of the constitution, i say to you, do your job. vote for a supreme court nominee. do your job. >> do your job. senator elizabeth warren joins us live, next. >>> do your job. vote for a supreme court nominee. do your job. vote on district court judges and circuit court judges. do your job

hard-working doctor in a moment talking about why it's important that she do her job and as united states senators we should not be held to a different standard. republicans in the senate need to do their job. >> article two of the constitution says the president shall nominate and with the advice shall appoint ambassadors and other public ministers and councils for judges of the supreme court and other officers in the united states so it's right there in the constitution with no exceptions for the election. this is the most basic and important responsibility. the president has done his job and send us a qualified nominee. now it's time for the senate to do its job that means giving the judge a fair hearing and a vote. we are ready to get to work for the republicans that refuse to do their job what role are they living in a. the american people deserve a senate that does its job. to fulfill their constitutional duty and join us in restoring the supreme court to its full strength there are lots of constitutional provisions that can be somewhat confusing reply giving of interpretations but slightly

today, candidates running for united states senate discuss the issues.e take you to rick carter, who will moderate this forum. rick: welcome. and i form is brought to you by baltimore, theof vz tv.ore sun, and us at w all the candidates who qualified for the ballot and pulled at 10% or greater were invited. the candidates are donna edwards and chris van hollen. questions tonight will be posed by our panel. cotton, dr. and director of the schaeffer center green,lic policy, edgar editorial-page editor for the baltimore sun, and columnist dan rogers. -- vic carter.er the order was determined by coin toss. candidates cannot interrupt each other. time limits for each question is 90 seconds. the timekeepers will warn candidates when they have 30 seconds left. one minute will be allowed for rebuttal, but the moderator will have the discretion to drop rebuttals for time later in the debate. each candidate will be given one minute for closing statements. first to our opening statements. ladies and gentlemen, mr. chris van hollen. rep. van hollen: it is great to b

reflecting the same extremism that has been nursed along for seven years right here in the united states senateverge of winning the republican party's nomination for president. and now republican senators must make a decision because here's the deal. extremists may not like it, but barack obama won the presidency in 2008 by 9 million votes. he won re-election in 2012 by 5 million votes. there were no recounts and no hanging chads, no stuffing the ballot box or tampering with voting machines, no intervention by the united states supreme court. no, president obama was elected the legitimate president seven years ago, and he's the legitimate president right now. so, if it is true that some republican senators are finally ready to stand up to the extremism that denies the legitimacy of this president and of the constitution, i say to you, do your job. vote for a supreme court nominee. do your job. >> do your job. senator elizabeth warren joins us live, next. almost everything, so we know how to cover almost anything. even a stag pool party. (party music) (splashing/destruction) (splashing/destructi

we need to see more people in the united states senate, in the united states congress, change their mind. and embrace commonsense gun control, gun safety legislation, that could prevent at least some incidence of gun violence without undermining the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans. but for mr. strickland's urrent position on these issues, he -- you should check with him or his campaign. reporter: it's fair to say you think going forward he would be a good candidate on these issues and one the president can support? mr. earnest: i think the president's endorsement is pretty strong. for mr. strictland's position on those issues, you should heck with him or his campaign. reporter: there was a report this morning about an isis ignificant operative and key operative being detained, captured in iraq somewhere. in as much as targeting the leadership is a significant aspect of the u.s. strategy there, what's going to happen to those individuals? where this will they be taken? where will they be held? what's the judicial process they will face if they're alive presumably? mr. ear

to be zeroing in very specifically on senate candidates that are in purple and blue states, including our own state senator, which we just saw -- i mean, our unitedtates senator, senator toomey, to say, "we're gonna put our money in with the voters to say this is something that you're supposed to do. you're at least supposed to give this person a review, give them an up-or-down vote, and if you don't, we don't think you're doing your job," and pew has already started polling on this question. at least at this point in pennsylvania, most pennsylvanians, both democrats primarily, but also independents believe we need to have a review and people need to vote. >> it's part of the constitutional process. >> the base of the party, if pat toomey blinks, in my estimation on this, and goes that way down this path, they will say, "we've lost again." they will turn. they will not come out and vote. that's what will happen. >> pat toomey's also in a pretty strong position. >> i think he's in a much stronger position when you look at the potential opponents. >> democrats are divided, and if you look at them, it's not obvious who's gonna beat pat toomey, and s

we need to see more people in the united states senate, in the united states congress, change their mind. and embrace commonsense gun control, gun safety legislation, that could prevent at least some incidence of gun violence without undermining the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans. but for mr. strickland's current position on these issues, he -- you should check with him or his campaign. reporter: it's fair to say you think going forward he would be a good candidate on these issues and one the president can support? that was aly the muss test for the president -- that was aly the miss it test for the president. mr. earnest: i think the president's endorsement is pretty strong. for mr. strictland's position on those issues, you should check with him or his campaign. reporter: there was a report this morning about an isis significant operative and key operative being detained, captured in iraq somewhere. in as much as targeting the leadership is a significant aspect of the u.s. strategy there, what's going to happen to those individuals? where this will they be taken? wher

and it certainly is not appropriate for anybody in the united states senate to suggest that they're goinge to not do their job. >> some groups on the left have said they're not enchanted with the president's choice. they say it was designed to apiece republicans in the senate rather than fire up the base. can you respond to their concern? >> the president's choice was designed to find the very best person for the job. and the president feels confident that that's what he's done. when you take a look at chief judge garland's credentials, you see they are unquestioned in terms of his legal ability. he's somebody with a demonstrated commitment to public service. the president discussed in the rose garden how early in his career chief judge garland willingly took a pay cut so he could work as a federal prosecutor. and he did work here in the district of columbia making neighborhoods in the city safer. and he certainly demonstrated a commitment to using his extensive legal training and his god-given ability to promote justice. and that was true when he oversaw the investigation and prosecution

but that same constitution reserves to the united states senate and the united states senate alone the right to either grant or withhold consent to that nominee. it is the same constitution. you can't argue that the president somehow has an unquestioned right to see his nominee rubberstamped by the senate and still show fidelity the same passages and that gives him the authority to make that nomination. constitution that gives them the authority to make that nomination. this president will not fill this vacancy. the senate will not confirm this nominee to this vacancy. and in so doing so, we are following the same rule work that democrats have advocated for in the past. it can't be that one senate rules apply to a democratic resident and a second set of rules apply when there is a republican president. this isn't just about speculating what democrats might do, or the shoe on the other foot if we had a republican president, because they have told us what they would do. they have done this since 1992, and in many ways they of caps on their promise. -- they have cap their promise. justice

these are foreign policy issues that require the united states senate to work together and i want to thank senator corker for his leadership on the senate foreign relations committee on this issue and many other issues. so let me first try to explain what we believe will happen in the next 45 minutes. under the arms export control act, the sale of military armament to pakistan requires the administration to give formal notification to the united states congress. prior to that former notification, there is an informer process where the administration will inform the senate foreign relations committee and the house foreign affairs committee that they intend to make a sale. they did that in regards to the f-16's for pakistan, and that's the issue that we are talking about. madam president, for several months, we have been in negotiations with the administration as well as with stakeholders as regards the sale of the f-16 to pakistan, because quite frankly we did have concerns. we had concerns to how it would impact the region, including india. we had concerns about pakistan being a nucle

the president will nominate and by thewith the consent of senate, ambassadors, judges of the supreme court, and all other states whothe united not provided for. it does not talk about any action.e, any required which governs are the senate rules. the constitution makes it very clear that the senate cap establish rules to follow within the bounds of the constitution. the senate rules, the only thing they have to say about the timing of action is when a vote will not occur. it shall not be put on the same day which the nomination is received or the day which it may be reported by the committee. then, there is 31.6, which is very relevant and instructive. nominations neither confirm nor session shalle not be acted upon at any seceding session without being m made to the president. that makes explicit that no hearing or action is required during that session. everybody here has voted for those rules. i don't know why folks take a contrary view in the minority to notge that rule, or are proposing a change to the role now. everybody here voted for that ule. again, the argument that the constitution requires us to act in a certain

. >> that would make him the first united states senator to ever say no. everybody plays this game, oh, i would never want to be number two. these guys are running on the republican side or the democratic side and they always say i don't want it. give me the name of the senator who, when offered it, said no? including the single most powerful senator in the building, lyndon johnson. it is a better job than being in the united states senate. especially if you're in the minor. if you're in the minor, there's no question you will have a much better and more effective life in government in the vice presidency. >> johnson lived in his own house called the elms in northwest washington as late as ford did in arlington. now it's letterhead, motorcade, house, travel, parties. they do hamilton at the white house, you get to sit in the front row. >> when you look at the republican prospects for this convention, if they've got paul ryan as a possible person to tap in an open convention, does that change the prospects? >> no, that doesn't make anybody happy that voted

he doesn't go to the united states senate. i must say, if i were a united states senator i would be so honored to be in that magnificent chamber voting for the people of florida. i think the people of florida fed up. i don't think he can -- i may be wrong but i don't think he can be elected dogcatcher in florida. i have so many -- you know, i'm in florida all the time. i just left florida to come to mississippi. i'm going back to florida. i'll tell you what. the people in florida think that he's literally defrauded them because you look at what he does. he never goes and votes. never over there. he has one of the worst of records of voting in history. >> 18 of the 20 contests now won by outsiders, insurgents. you have won the overwhelming majority of them. ted cruz's in second place. and, you know, marco won minnesota and puerto rico yesterday. okay. fair enough. but the establishment has thrown all the pmoney and i assume ten of millions more against you and an equation emerging, prevent, keep the guys in. let's push rubio in

find ourselves in the midst of the storm the professor forecast. , theese past five years united states senate has endured three of the most contentious in the history of the united states. the nomination of william rehnquist, who was confirmed by the most votes cast against him of any judge to the supreme to that point. the 1987 rejection of robert bork at the end of an epic conflict between competing constitutional visions, and the subsequent withdrawal of douglas ginsburg days after president reagan selected him to succeed bork as his nominee. this fierce fight, which none of us, i suspect, will ever forget in 1991 over clarence thomas's nomination to the court, which broke chief justice rehnquist's record for receiving the most negative votes in senate history. this change to the court over the last few years has already been dramatic. professor pointed out, there is every reason to see that we may see as many as five more justices retired within the next four years. stand likelihood then, we at the halfway point of the remaking of the supreme court. with as many coming controversies as we

donald trump, i can't speak for him. , maryland you this has been badly served in the united states senate for many years. if donald trump is on the ballot or someone else, i will make it my business to make sure that democrats, independents, and republicans will understand what i will do to fill those gaps in the senate. individuals who know the rules and you have the moxie to do it needs if you send people to mar, you are going there -- they are est system ever. i trust the voters. they will work this out. america cannot take four more years of the last seven years. ballot will do a betwe have had. insiders career politicians. it is time for us to change washington. getting rid of regulations. the world customers who live overseas. i'm going to use my rebuttal time. we have to get sound money in place. if we get these four elements in place, we have growth in our economy. we can give the middle class a seat at our table. that is why donald trump succeeds. that is why rs succeeds. people are looking for a solution and an answer. that is why i am running for the senate, to deliver those an

there's a constitutional responsibility that members of the united states senate have to consider the president's nominee to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. it's as simple as that. >> reporter: chuck grassley, head of the senate judiciary committee may meet with garland in april after the break. others are undecided. >> if i do meet with him, it may not be a good use of his time because i'm not going to change my position because it's based on the principle. >> reporter: the senate's top republican spoke with garland by phone, but says he won't meet face to face. in a new op-ed, mitch mcconnell calls waiting for the next nominee a fair and reasonable compromise. the house speak agrees. >> the president has every right to nominate whoever he wants to, but the senate has every right not to act on that nomination. >> reporter: this afternoon, senate democrats will rally outside the supreme court urging republicans to act. >> if merrick garland can't get bipartisan support, then nobody can. >> have the guts, the guts, to vote yes or no. >> reporter: but for now, republicans vow no he

. >> united states senator. secretary of state. >> i'm sorry to say -- first lady. >> flip flopper. for me, i see character because people stand on issues can change as we have all seen. character defines who you are. not what you do. >> titles aren't accomplishments. >> i'm going to play for viewers at home that clip that you reacted to then understand why you resented it so much. you talk about leveling with the american people, have you always told the truth? >> i've always tried to. always. >> some people are going to call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself. always tried to i will never lie to you. >> but that's -- you know you're asking me to say, have i ever, i don't believe i ever have. >> what was wrong? >> you could turn off the sound and still see on her face that she was lying. she was the worst liar i think i've ever seen in my life. >> she lied about lying. >> for me it comes down to literally a bottom line decision to what length am i willing to go t rump out o white house. >> why do i have to pick lesser of two evils to run the free world. supposed to be the

he touted her experience as united states senator and united states secretary of state. the senate for the treaty that threat of nuclear war. there is a reason she got china and russia to a great to the iran sanctions. anthony: ellie clinton will be in north carolina on wednesday. no word yet when she -- where she will appear. tisha: thousands turning out to sea donald trump -- to see donald crumpdrop in concorde. -- to see donald trump in concorde. >> we are going to help our vets. we are going to get rid of obama care. we are getting rid of common core. we will have great education. we are going to have borders you will be proud of you if we don't have borders, we don't have a country. tisha: five people interrupted his speech. all of them taken out. it's gone viral and social media. >> go home to mommy. tell her to tuck you into that. oh, he is such a nice guy. nasty little -- i'll tell you, nasty people. man, are you sure you are in north carolina? he's a nasty guy? tisha: his next stop is fayetteville's crown coliseum. for bragg officials warning soldiers not to wear

before jefferson sessions iii was elected to the united states senate, he was rejected by the united states senate as a nominee for federal judgeship in the 1980s. >> a federal judgeship is a lifetime appointment and president reagan has been nominating young men for these jobs 32 to 38 years old. people who could keep the reagan influence around. one of his nominees in trouble. in troubling for saying naacp is a pinko organization. nbc news national political correspondent ken bode is in our washington studio this morning. morning. >> morning. the man who said those things and would be a federal judge is jeff sessions. >> mr. session s a throw back to a shameful era that i know black and white americans thought was in our past. it's inconceivable to me that a person of this attitude is qualified to be a u.s. attorney let alone a united states and federal judge. >> jefferson session was brought face-to-face with things he said. for example, that the naacp and the civil liberties union are un-american organizations. >> these comments that you could say about, i may have said something

office, robert byrd had become and remains the longest-serving member in the history of the united states senatewhen senator byrd set a senate record by casting his 17,000th vote in 2004, ted kennedy said this -- "every time bob casts a vote, he sets a new record. it's not fair, though, that he counts the votes he cast in the roman senate too. but we love him anyway and we never stop learning from him." ted kennedy forgave robert byrd for snatching the majority whip's job from him. he forgave robert byrd for trying to stop his brother jack's road to the white house. he forgave robert byrd's vote against thurgood marshall. he forgave byrd's opposition to the civil rights act of 1964. and yes, he forgave senator byrd's membership in the ku klux klan. robert byrd's chapter of the klan was not known to be involved in any violence. senator byrd said they never conducted any parades or marches or public demonstrations of any kind. robert byrd came to be ashamed of his membership in the klan. he said, "it has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me." in 2005 he told eric pianin of the "was

understands his job is not to advance a political agenda and somebody who should be confirmed by the united states senate because the president was elected to a four-year term and is required by the constitution to appoint somebody. the united states senate is required to offer up advice and consent based on his qualifications. there is no reason he should not be confirmed. >> senator sanders said he would nominate somebody more progressive, trying to distance himself from the white house. mr. earnest: i certainly did not. he is entitled to his own opinion. if he is elected president, presumably he will have a vacancy or two you will have the opportunity to evaluate the candidates and put some before. the president, the sitting president, the current president has already done that as required by the constitution. he has availed his duty. it is time for the senate to fulfill theirs and am gratified we have seen secretary clinton and senator sanders acknowledge that chief judge garland is qualified, who do a good job and they have been pretty aggressive in suggesting the senate should move forward. >> you

a majority of the united states senate does not want to move forward with this nomination. the senate does not want to move. it's not a minority filibuster. it's a majority of the senate that decided not to move forward to let the next president who will be taking their case to the american people and certainly we will be discussing what kind of judges they would like to see on replace thecourt to fabulous, grade justice scalia. who will replace justice scalia will be decided in the next election. the court is not going to cease 8.function because it's fully awarei am that my colleagues want to make a political point and push this issue. but it's what the senate would do. this is not an unreasonable position. i think we have to go back to 1888 before somebody under these same circumstances was confirmed late in the session. theseairman, you know rules. you know the history of this. senator hatch knows the rules. that thisly convinced is what the democrats would do if they were in this situation. this is what you would expect the senate to do. let the american people have a v

the question for the united states senate is how do we respond when that happens? we say do our job and follow the law and follow the constitution and the history that backs it up. thank you. >> senator vitter. >> with a vote coming up, i have a prior responsibility. i would like to have my remarks entered into the record. >> they will be put into the record. senator vitter. >> thanks for holding this important discussion. i think it is really instructive and somewhat ironic given the justice scalia vacancy, to hear all of these arguments from the left that the constitution requires, demands a hearing and a vote in a certain time frame. most folks on the left, most outside groups, many senators on the left are clearly making that argument and i think it is sort of ironic given that we are debating a vacancy created by justice scalia's death because justice scalia toss us first and foremost, read the words. words have meaning, read the words, don't just make up as you go along. to get to what end you want to get to. it is instructive. the left wants a new supreme cou

unanimous vote by the united states senate. and what did justice scalia say? said that, well, the senators voting for him because it was named to the voting rights act. remember that? senator hatch: he had a half-hour argument towards hundreds of hours of debate. senator franken: i mean, this is insulting. to hear that. it is just insulting. now, let me say a couple things about some of the things i have been hearing. senator biden, chairman biden, when he spoke, does anyone here know, anyone, chairman, do you know when he spoke? i'm sorry. i apologize. it had to beley: june, 1992. senator franken: it was late june as the session was ending. and when he was talking about is somebody resigning to game the system. that is what he was talking about. we are talking here about confirming someone to replace a justice who has died. think about how different that is, everybody. when chuck schumer says in its -- an extraordinary situation, he is talking about someone dying. scientists tell us there are 10.5 months left in this president's four-year term. and justice sca

when you take a majority in the united states senate you have a responsibility to govern. thus far republicans refuse to embrace their responsibility. >> a free-speech question. the late aaron schwartz, outside government and private corporations, have a monopoly on places on line, is becoming very clear twitter and facebook in particular are punishing conservative and military points of view. the president made encouraging comments about free-speech that they shouldn't be coddled, suggesting the culture is not something he believes in. something the president can do to encourage silicon valley to remind them of the importance of the open free speech in our society. >> obviously a part of what was built into our system was respect for private companies to put in place their own policies. the success of that social media is predicated on the idea of free expression. this committee tools are so groundbreaking gives an opportunity to express themselves in ways that they did not imagine. and the average person the opportunity to be heard by the world. that makes the technology

she had a full hearing and became the first woman to serve in the united states senate. she is now retired. she has made it very clear publicly that she thinks we should go forward in the nomination hearing. there are those that have been on the supreme court and retired, but you will find people across the political spectrum, republicans and democrats are saying have the hearing and vote up or down. [inaudible] are you saying the senate's democrats wouldn't be willing to have a hearing and vote on judge garland after [inaudible] >> i'm not saying that at all. what i'm saying is do what is always done, have the hearing. i get tired of hearing [inaudible] i remind them the last two years of the term they put 68 of the judges. we were doing the nominations right up to september and then we all recessed. do the same thing we did. >> is there a chance that he will be confirmed? >> i talked about where the hurdles are and what i thought would happen if we actually followed the oath that we have all taken to uphold the constitution. >> [inaudible] >> we actually didn't even go