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

supreme court allow video coverage of their arguments. the canadian and british supreme court stream their hearing live. the us supreme court permits audio coverage only on a delayed basis. the supreme court confirmation hearings for judge neil gorsuch live monday starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span two. c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. >> the chair and members of the federal communications commission testified on capitol hill about net neutrality, high-speed internet access and the availability of new spectrum. the senate congress committee hearing is about two hours 45 minutes. [inaudible conversatio] >>. good morning welcome today's hearing the oversight of the federal patient. i should point out the committee has jurisdiction over sports that last night being south dakota state university jackrabbits punched their ticket to the nca tournament to attornment by winning other tournaments. so a lot of folks are having south dakota today. [laughter] all right. listen, the last time we met, i think it was six years ago since then things have changed. new chairman in charge of the agency and sev

there with the attorney general for the state of georgia and we had phones hooked up to the us supreme courteorgia pardons and parole office, and so then, when he checked with each of those entities which might grant a stay or parole or commute the sentence, but when he checked with each entity and there was no stay, he indicated that to me. there was an individual standing behind me who had been my electrician when i was a warden at this institution. i knew him very well. when the attorney general indicated that there was no stay, then i asked the individual if he'd like to give his last words. he said, "please forgive me." then i turned to brad and said, "brad, it's now time." brad flipped a switch and we could see thatjolt of electricity running through this individual‘s body and it snapped his head back. and then there was just total silence. and i knew i had killed another human being. at the very beginning of this interview, you used the word murder. yes. do you believe in your heart that you murdered or were involved... complicit in the murder of christopher burger? although it is sta

later, in ‘74, that georgia wrote a new law that was determined to be constitutional by the us supreme courttual executions didn't take place until many years later because of appeals. the first two that i executed had been on death row for 17 years. in fact they were 17 when they came in and they were 3a when they were executed. actually they were different individuals. let's talk about the case because i think it is important to get very specific here. the 17—year—old that you mentioned, i believe he was called christopher burger, he was of limited iq. i think he scored something like 80 or so on the test, suggesting he was close to being mentally impaired. he also had been abused as a child. he ended up being involved in the kidnap, rape and murder of a young man. as you say, he was on death row for 17 years, you got to know him. yes. i visited when i was commissioner, i visited death row on several occasions, i got to know him. this was the first warrant i had to execute someone. i went down to jackson, about a0 miles from atlanta, where central headquarters are, so i talked to him and o

us supreme court justice felix -- once wrote if one man allowed to determine for himself what the lawis then every man can. that means chaos and then tierney. american law enforcement officers i have always understood this to be true. and they spend their life's work exemplifying my faith and, my belief in and commitment to our american system of justice. a system renowned the world over for the provisions of individual due process as a right endowed in each of us by our creator. [applause] the rule of law does not divide us. it binds us together with your behaviors, beliefs and manners. i call in as many of you, american exceptionalism. we are a nation of limited government in which everyone willfully and as a matter of civic duty must obey the laws. [applause] and the value with a small price paid members and servants of the common law is the greatest treasure known to mankind. freedom. sweet freedom. [applause] sweet tempered and forged with what washington once called the sacred fire of liberty. and freedom my conservative friends is no small c la carte side dish at a restaurant.

when you look at the carbon issue you have a supreme court case in 2007 where they were sued the federal government for regulating co2 from mobile sources. the us supreme court didn't say that it should be regulated. it said make a decision. you have to determine whether co2 is something that should be regulated or not. you can't simply fail to make a decision. in 2009, and endangerment finding by the epa. then you had two responses since , you had the taylor rule that was struck down by the supreme court and that you are division and you have the clean power plant. to bite the apple that the epa engaged in and both times the court that you didn't get it right. what does that tell you? congress hasn't dealt with this issue. congress is not actually through the clean air act addressed the issue called carbon. as you look at the clean air act, if anything, it want to deal with the local air pollutants. not the global phenomenon. this is an important issue that you raised on where the balance is between delegation and agencies at the federal level acting, the executive branch exist to do enforce the law passed by the legislative branch. if the leg

us supreme court denied of cleaned to hear this appeal in corruption case. the court refused to dismiss charges including conspiracy, bribery and fraud against the democratic lawmaker. menendez was inn indicte indictk in 2015 after prosecutors say he accepted nearly $1 million in campaign donations and gifts and took official action on behalf of a long-time friend. his trial is set to begin in september. >>> now to your fox 29 weather authority. officially spring as we take a live look at blue mountain from our pocono mountains camera. the change in seasons not keeping people off the slopes that's for sure. looks like a pefect day to skier or snowboard. meteorologist kathy orr is here. beautiful start to spring today, kathy. any way you slice it. >> absolutely, dawn. we had plenty of sun. we had seasonal temperatures and right now we're still holding ton 52 in philadelphia and 46 in pottstown. that cooler air is moving in from the northwest and will be cooling down into the 30s and 40s overnight tonight. as we hour by hour you can see the clouds rolling in.

supreme court that does what? >> senator com ed guarantees married couples the privacy in their own home to use contraceptives.>> isa long-standing president of the supreme court? >> it is senator. >> what weight would you give that? >> underwater president, if you look at the age, this one is over 50 years. if you look at the reliance, obvious and substantial, you look at whether it has been reaffirmed, which it has many times. and senator as i said yesterday, i cannot imagine a state attempting to pass a law like that. >> let's say they did. >> i cannot imagine the supreme court of the united states taking methane seriously. >> let's say they did.and i'm with you on both. would you listen to the people who made the argument to make the argument? >> senator, you listen to every person that comes to court. >> so to overturn griswold you have to have a case and controversy, right?>> right. >> in a semi-someone has to convince some state or somebody somewhere, to outlaw contraception in the marital relationship. that would be a case in controversy. >> what you would have to have a state to pass along with that. >> wh

former supreme court clerk for justice clarence thomas. carrie, great to have you with us. have to say there were moments like that with ted cruz which there was a master class it seemed to me going on in law, that is that part of it which i could comprehend. and then to see al franken and ben sass and their nonsense, it was frankly stultifying, appalling, your reaction? carrie: actually, i thought there were educational moments that came out of the interchange with senator sass as well. i have to agree, i thought senator franken was as usual not really hitting it clear with the points. he seemed to, you know, like all of the other democrat senators we saw today. trying to lay the groundwork for gridlock. hoping to find something they can point to and say this is why i want to block a vote with this guy. that's what the base is pushing them to do. at the end of the day, they couldn't lay it on him. he clearly explained why so many of the cases they nitpicked and cherry picked out of his records weren't that unanimous or explained why the law compels his results, and i his j

the us supreme court heard oral arguments recently in hernandez v mason, a case that could determine f the family of a mexican national and soup us border patrol agent for shooting and killing a 15-year-old farmboy on the mexican side of the border. including a concrete culvert built out of texas and mexico with a boy on the mexican side of the border in the us agent on the us side. this is over an hour. >>

we ended up with the sixth circuit court of appeals where we lost, and that eventually gave us the opportunity to say, supreme court, we want you to hear our case. and at that point it was the first appeals court to rule against marriage equality, so it created the split. and that was the silver line anything that loss. that took me to the supreme court, and i think you know how that turned out. [laughter] [applause] >> that was a pretty productive honeymoon, i would say. >> yes, it was. [laughter] >> we'll try our best to go back and forth between the two. as we were preparing for this discussion, this is a real stark contrast with the supreme court. one is happy, one is sad. depends how you look at it. we had that conversation before, and i hope that we can have a rich and vibrant discussion about the history of the court. i do want to start off though with adam, because as i read your book and i prepared for this, i found myself wondering do we still practice eugenics? and the reason i came to that was because i thought about abortions, and that's a way of perhaps controlling an environment. and i wondered

today is day two of the confirmation hearing for president trump us supreme court pick, neil gorsuch. each member of the committee him. is expected session to last about 10 hours. he offered a message of unity, saying that we are all americans first before republicans or democrats. six: 48, breaking right now, to overnight assaults at two different metro stations. one happened at the rhode island metro station in northeast just for 11:30 last night. was an that there altercation between two people. one person was injured and it was not clear the type of left and that was used. the second incident happened short time later at the gallery , involving atation manager in the passenger. the passenger reportedly refused to leave and assaulted them before they took off. they were caught just a few blocks away from the station. breaking this morning, investigators pinpointing the case of an overnight fire in montgomery county that broke out this morning in the basement of a home on sheridan street. improperly dispose of smoking materials started the flame. fire was quickly brought under contr

court does reconsider its rulings. and one possibility and one way in which those of us who disagree with the supreme court, some of the supreme court's rulings can seek to reverse a decision is by bringing other cases and making a stronger case and persuading the court to

what the judge did or what the law says and explaining how those cases diverts predominant use the supreme court is functioning asy an instrument of the republican party. in fact you might as well call someone a so-called judge in the case where you disagree with the outcome. in fact calling someone a so-called judge is probably nor. worse than calling the supreme court of united states an f instrument of the republican party. finally i want to talk about thd filibuster. the minority leader has -- his colleagues on the filibuster. the minority clip has announced he will filibuster. only two democrats have said they would vote yes on cloture so here we are.f i would ask my colleagues if neil gorsuch can't get 60 votes for cloture which republican nominee can click some of my a colleagues have argued if the nominee can't get 60 votes the president should find a new nominee. i ask my colleagues was that the standard for several of president obama's nominees to the u.s. court of appeals in the d.c. circuit? well yeah it was. nove standard. that was the standard until november of 2013 as democrats in

supreme court. these decisions affect not just the individuals who came before you, as a supreme court justice your decisions will have lasting consequences for the rest of us. during the campaign president trump made it very clear that he had a series of litmus tests for his supreme court nominee. over a two-year period the president said that his nominee must favor overturning roe v. wade, deny women access to health care on the basis of religious freedom, and upholding the heller decision on guns which nra believes prevents congress, state or local governments from passing common sense gun safety legislation. each of these tests would have a profound impact on the lives of every american. donald trump's litmus test for supreme court nominees were crystal clear. in nominating you, judge gorsuch, i can only conclude that you met the presidents litmus tests. your ideological perspective, or as some would say here, your judicial philosophy on these issues matter because if you are confirmed, you will have a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. in our cozy meeting you said you have a heart -- courtesy -- so we need to know what is in your heart. we need

which is designed to do nothing more than put the result of the referendum into law, as the supreme court told uswe waited for the supreme court to give us the detailed guidance on that, and we are going to do that. please don't tie the prime minister's hands in the process of doing that for things which we expect to attain anyway. what reaction has there been? labour have basically said that they think theresa may should look at these amendments from the lords and allow them to be included in the bill. when it goes to the commons tomorrow we know that labour have said they support the idea of these amendments going forward. the shadow brexit secretary, keir starmer, has said that eu citizens in the uk have been left in limbo and the government needs to put this obsession with the bill going through without any amendments aside. we are arguing this tomorrow. the amendments are simple but really important. the first one is to guarantee the rights of eu citizens in this country. these are people who have notjust contributed to but are part of our society and they have been left in limbo. we are ask

court than this one. this has a real-world impact on all of us. who sits on the supreme court should not simply legalistic eateries and latin phrases in isolation. they must understand the court's decision have real-world twice, mr. chairman. >> stand at ease for a couple minutes, it won't take very long. [inaudible conversations] >> it is my understanding that you two have kind of decided that senator gardner should go first and then senator bennett and then will have when you folks depart the table will have mr. chai hall to the table. senator gardner i think you, mr. chairman i would like to begin by thanking everyone on the committee for your hard work during these hearings for the next several days. today is a great pleasure that i introduce along with my colleague, senator michael bennet and share my strong support for our outstanding supreme court nominee, judge neil gorsuch. if you've you've ever had the privilege of visiting park in denver you'll notice a plaque with a poem, thomas ford b, it's a poem known as the two rivers describing the settlement of the west

obama or clinton his legacy would have been in grave danger.would if they filled the be with us in the supreme court were the will of the people was cast asi. us supreme court restored eight viewing itself as a philosopher who has the power to decide what policy should govern our nation to control every facet of our life? that process is from fiveel unelectable years in washington d.c.. a shift in the supreme court that is why after histh untimely death to exercise six was set constitutional authority and revise president obama we would not consent to a supreme court nominee and tell the people and then but the people had a choice. between air racialist be youa ci of the representatives or progressive and activist but during the campaign president trump repeatedly promised to nominate and indeed he laid out a specific list and then still to judge the nominee. issuing a list was a of prominence and greeted the most transparent process that are nation has ever seen. the voters had a direct choice and understood the 21 men and women have a very different years and of a supreme court justice and then th

. >> the us supreme court is considering a case over when to lease or be sued for excessive force, police shot them in a shack behind a house, the police were searching for a parolee and came across the couple, the man happened to be holding a bb gun he used to shoot rats. a $4 million award, listen to oral argument in the case in los angeles county versus mendez tonight at 8:00 eastern. former white house advisor mike flynn should ask for immunity before testifying before congress on russia ties. we will bring live coverage this afternoon for the white house briefing which is scheduled to start at 1:00 p.m. eastern. former deputy secretary of state and national security advisor tony pink and will talk about us/asia relations at johns hopkins university school of advanced international studies annual asia conference. live coverage begins at 1:00 eastern on c-span. live sunday at noon eastern investigative journalists, annie jacobson is our guests on booktv's in depth. >> what is clear is moving humans in the military environment toward being comfortable with the idea of merging man and ma

agree or disagree: the senate should confirm supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. joining usorter for "usa today" and law professi professor at yal. has gor duls such become a stronger or weaker nominee? >> stronger because i have heard no republican oppose him and there is even softness on the democratic side that there are lots of prominent, not just holars and judges and legal experts, but even i think leading politicians who have not signalled a die hard strategy. one of the people who actually introduced him, although not committing himself on the merits, was home state senate who happens to be a colorado snat senator who happens to be a democrat, michael ben nit who did go out of his way as sort of courtesy and propriority and convention indicate actually introduced gorsuch to to committee. and there are also democrats in red states who are up for re-electi re-election. >> exactly. and there are many that are being watched in these very situations here and that's part of the calculus here, isn't it? because if democrats want to try to get a political win at the moment,

the us supreme court heard oral arguments recently in hernandez v mason, a case that could determine if the family of a mexican national and soup us border patrol agent for shooting and killing a 15-year-old farmboy on the mexican side of the border. including a concrete culvert built out of texas and mexico with a boy on the mexican side of the border in the us agent on the us side. this is over an hour. >>. >> the argument first this morning in case 15 118, hernandez versus mesa. >> mister chief justice, may please the court. 15-year-old sergio hernandez was standing in mexico barely across the border, unthreatening and honored when he was shot and killed by us border patrol agent standing inside the united states. >> this tragic case is one of the most simplest extraterritorial cases this court will ever have in front of it. first, all of the content of the domestic peace officers happen inside the united states. second, it was a civilian domestic peace officer. >> third, it was a civilian plaintiff. not an enemy combatant. fourth, it was one of the most uneventful riots, the right

supreme court spot that has been vacant for more than a year. neil gorsuch getting a warm welcome after a remark. he faces tough questioning ahead. abc's terry moran covers the supreme court for us. >> reporter: judge neil gorsuch in the crosshairs today -- [ cameras shuttering ] but cool under fire, even having some fun. [ laughter ] for the most part, though, judge gorsuch just had to sit and smile and listen to the senators' statements, republicans praising him -- >> i know from my own personal experience that you are one of the best judges in the country. >> reporter: and democrats challenging him, demanding to know if he could rule against president trump, if the fbi probe into links between russia and the trump campaign comes before the court. >> the possibility of the supreme court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation. >> reporter: then it was gorsuch's turn. >> i do. >> reporter: and he got personal, thanking his wife. >> i love you so much. >> reporter: emotionally remembering a beloved uncle, who died last month. >> a hero of mine and a lifelong episcopal priest. >> reporter: and he praised the judges he called his mentors,

supreme court spot that has been vacant for more than a year. neil gorsuch getting a warm welcome after a remark. he faces tough questioning ahead. abc's terry moran covers the supreme court for us. >> reporter: judge neil gorsuch in the crosshairs today -- [ cameras shuttering ] but cool under fire, even having some fun. [ laughter ] for the most part, though, judge gorsuch just had to sit and smile and listen to the senators' statements, republicans praising him -- >> i know from my own personal experience that you are one of the best judges in the country. >> reporter: and democrats challenging him, demanding to know if he could rule against president trump, if the fbi probe into links between russia and the trump campaign comes before the court. >> the possibility of the supreme court needing to enforce a subpoena against the president is no longer idle speculation. >> reporter: then it was gorsuch's turn. >> i do. >> reporter: and he got personal, thanking his wife. >> i love you so much. >> reporter: emotionally remembering a beloved uncle, who died last month. >> a hero of mine and a lifelong episcopal priest. >> reporter: and he praised the judges he called his mentors,

supreme court cases. but you can't answer those, either, as justice kagan told us, "i pretty consistently said that i don't want to grade or give a thumbs up or thumbs down on particular supreme court ."ses at the time she said "i don't want you to lay out a task in the abstract that might determine what your vote or test would be in a case that you have yet to see, so you, the present nominee, deserve no less, and that applies to easy cases just as well as it might apply to hard cases. in any event, we don't need to dwell on hypotheticals. you have a ten-year record on the 10th circuit. you have written over 770 opinions, or at least been involved in that many and heard probably a little stint 3000, getting close to that number. so, without talking about hypotheticals, there's plenty that we can talk about. so, i'm going to start with thompson school versus blue p -- luke p. he was an autistic student. his parents sued the local school district so that it would pay his tuition at a private, residential school. the statute at issue dealt with the individual with disability education act. you held that the

supreme court in a 5-4 decision in kilo v. city of new london peld held that i quote economic development, closed quote can be a use. in doing so, the supreme court allowed the government to take perfectly fine property rights from one small homeowner and give it to a large corporation for a private business facility. as it dissent in that case pointed out, under the majority's opinion, any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party. the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. the founders cannot have intended this perverse result. the public reaction to the kilo decision was swift and strong. according to "wall street journal" and the nbc news poll by an 11-1 margin, americans said they opposed the taking of private property for public uses. and according to an american survey poll conducted at the time, public support for limiting the power of eminent domain is robust and cuts acrossdom graphic and partisan groups. justice o'connor in a subsequent speech called the kilo decision scary. even justice john paul stevens who wrote the ki

so as a lawyer and as, on the supreme court he demonstrated to all of us the importance of our court system as well as the supreme court. >> you've been serving in public office since 1980. what or did somebody inspire you to serve? >> there's a number of people who inspired me to serve. first and foremost, my grandmother, my mother. they were individuals, my father, my grandfather, all of them were people who believed strongly you should give back. and i'm very proud of the family and what they laid out for me. that's the first thing. secondly, there was people like whitney young from the national urban league about one person can make a difference. reverend leon sullivan who did a lot in the inner city and internationally when he talked about -- he wrote a book called "build, brother, build," and in that book he talked about the importance of the african-american community building our communities. so people like are leon sullivan, people like whitney young, people like thurgood marshall, fannie lou hamer, phyllis wheatley, all of those people contributed to me in one way or the oth

justice department made that exact argument in the us supreme court case in 1954. the justice department even quoted genesis in the book of psalms from the bible to support the claim of christian supremacy. this is a direct contradiction with th establishment clause ofe first amendment of the u.s. constitution and the separation of church and state. we reject the pattern of thought and behavior on the credo and command, love riches and wealth. the vatican papal document and the royal charters written by self deprived, self-described christian monarchs that brought the credo and command here reveal the underlying code of domination and dehumanization used to attack our nations. the coat of domination expressed in a belief system that is willing to sacrifice everything on the altar of greed. even the sacred waters upon them which life depends to realize the unfortunate truth of this statement, one has to only think of the lead in the brains of the children of flint michigan were agreed and respect for life destroyed rivers. when our indigenous ancestors carefully car

supreme court is infallible, when clearly it is not. do we really want to enshrine, for all time, every decision the court makes? history gives us many examples of the supreme court overruling itself and correcting its own errors. usually, those who argue "balance" have certain decisions they do not want reconsidered under any circumstances. on the other hand, i believe the court should be allowed to correct errors it has made. finally, there is one other issue that should be addressed. i believe, as i have stated before, that the full senate should make the final determination on all nominations. the confirmation process should not stop at the committee level. the constitution requires the advice and consent of the senate, not simply the opinion of anyone committee. i am pleased that both chairman biden and the distinguished majority leader, among others, have indicated that they agree that this nomination should be dealt with by the full senate. further, does anyone really believe that these proponents of a" balance theory" would oppose a liberal nominee solely because head been named to replace a conservative justice? of cour

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

supreme court? we're out with a new survey today. joining is robert green. he's the pollster. thanks for being with us. let's go through the highlights. according to the survey, 90% said that the supreme court decisions effect their lives and 82% saying that the supreme court appointments were a consideration in their vote in

they plan to use the old state supreme court building. >>> hugh jackman, logan took in $85 million. that beat expectations as the film had the best box office debut of the year so far. get out fell to second. >>> wall street closed up slightly past the 21,000 mark on the dow. futures are pointing to losses. >>> pope francis has called on catholics to spend less time on their smart phones addressing a packed st. peter's square the pontiff said to value the bible as much, if not more. he uses the social media, but you rarely see him looking down on his smart phone during his homily not like he is addicted. >> he's been talking about this a lot. >>> local nurses hit the big picture line we'll bring you a live report on a double shooting in philadelphia that left a man dead and teenager wounded. >>> facebook pictures that the department of defense is now investigating. >> happening today the medicare fraud trial of a florida eye doctor who is connected to a new jersey senator's corruption case is set to begin. he charged with stealing from the medicare program between 2004 and 201. he f

supreme court? we're out with a new survey today. joining is robert green. he's the pollster. thanks for being with us. let's go through the highlights. according to the survey, 90% said that the supreme court decisions effect their lives and 82% saying that the supreme court appointments were a consideration in their vote in 2016. did these numbers surprise you? >> the only thing that surprised me was as big as these numbers are they've gotten more intense over the eight years we've been conducting these surveys. eight years ago, the first time we did, the strongly agree was in the 30s and now it's almost 50%. almost 50% of americans strongly agree the decisions have an cuba accou -- impact on their every day lives. that 82% number you mentioned, it's bipartisan. it cuts across the parties. everybody feels strongly that what happened with the supreme court was an important factor in their vote. >> can you walk us through the methodology of the survey, who you polled and what took place and what was the margin of error. >> it's been conducted very recently. we conducted online interviews from march 7 to

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

use clorox disinfecting products. because no one kills germs better than clorox. >> leland: even before the hearings on supreme court nomineed democratic senators are already saying they'll vote no. essentially lowering testimony from the american bar association that called him "well-qualified" for the job. joining us now, former law clerks and supreme court -- we know that you went through the past two nominations. i know you don't like neil gorsuch very much, be a bigger republicans points for how they pulled one off. >> it's been a deeply cynical idea that so far, it's working for them. this story is not finished yet. as neil gorsuch shows record comes more to light, his record of being very strongly against the underlying reasons to support women's rights to make reproductive choices, his strong record against workers rights comes to light, the outlook is dim. >> leland: we are guessing you're into disagreed, but i want to get this idea about whether judge or gorsuch will become justice gorsuch. as i said, he will have to earn 60 votes from confirmation. speak out there not even finished with the hearings yet, but we h

us today is not leader mcconnell and it's not judge merrick garland. it's one of those extraordinarily talented and capable people that we could possibly have on the supreme court so i hope the nomination hearing focuses on the one person before us who i believe can fill the supreme court. the very important goal and i considered one of the most important jobs. nothing rises to the level and importance of your nominationd and the composition of the supreme court. it will outlast most presence and many senators. affects all americans and it will be a judgment that you will render that will last for decades.doubt that you h i have no doubt that you have the qualifications. as a matter fact senator grahami i associate myself with senator graham's comments.na the only reason i didn't pursuer your academic line of schools mainly had to do with requirements but i appreciate the hard work that you did academically. i appreciate the hard work you did as a litigator and the work that you have done as a judge. i think it's truly extraordinary. i want to go back to a comment or a conversation we had in my office. i mentioned to you in my office that i don't like activist

the rules do allow for a filibuster for the supreme court nomination, but it certainly doesn't require democrats to use that. >> you're using the word filibuster. >> because that's what it is. >> no, it is not. >> there will be a vote. if he doesn't get 60 votes, he does not become supreme court justice. that's the rule right now. that's not like people are going to be standing for months manned months bringing doubt government. >> okay. >> that's what the current rule, is and i think it's important

of supreme court, while most us think about the supreme court ith high-profile issue, equality or big abortion case, what the supreme court does and cases reallyboring does affect every aspect of american lives, again, from the the water you , drink, food you eat, who you can marry, the supreme court in the late '60s right to marry a person of a loving versus in virginia. same-sex y and lesbian case down to whether you can cast your ballot free from at the polls, whether you can get a mortgage free from racial discrimination, supreme court does impact pocket books, our impacts the most important aspects of our lives, incredibly it is important that we give a close the iny to any nominee to supreme court, including this nominee and the american people conversation.lic i think that while i disagree views e caller about his on the constitution, i'm glad we're talking about it, it is the way we talk about that one interprets the constitution, what we think it think what other people it means and have civil discourse. thoughts on ifour should the judge make it to the supreme court, how it

>> now, it does turn out, particularly at the level of the supreme court, that there are times when precedent is revisited. could you tell us when it is appropriate. how does a person, particularly a supreme court justice, how should a supreme court justice approach that question? >> same way a circuit judge approaches the question, with circuit precedent. we do the same thing. nothing changes. it's the same set of principles. >> so what process do you go throw make the decision that you should revisit precedent? >> start with a presumption in favor of history and that people came before you were just as smart or maybe even smarter than you are. when we put on the robe, you lose the ego. you look at the reliance interests that have formed around the precedent. you look at how long it's been around. you look at -- see whether it's been reaffirmed. you look at the quality of the initial decision. you look at the doctrine and whether it's been built up around it or whether it's been eroded away. you look at workability. those are some of the factors a good judge looks at when deciding any challenge to a precedent. >> and i ass