Skip to main content

tv   Special Report With Bret Baier  FOX News  February 1, 2017 1:00am-2:01am PST

1:00 am
will create some storm clouds for judge gorsuch. >> tucker: i believe that, both victims of this at the moment. great to see you. we will be covering on? ♪ 's but one president trump nominates a conservative judge, and advocate for religious freedom, and a strict constructn list to be the next justice of the supreme court. and now the fireworks begin. this is "special report." ♪ good evening, welcome to washington, i'm bret baier. this is a special edition of "special report" on president trump's nomination for the u.s. supreme court. exit polls show it was a major factor in his upset win in november. tonight, the president selected tenth u.s. circuit court of appeals judge, neil gorsuch, to fill the seat left by engines
1:01 am
clear. it begins but is likely to be a brutal battle over his confirmation. shannon bream is that the court to tell us more about judge gorsuch. mike emanuel tells us what he is hearing on capitol hill and the vote counting already started, but we will start at the the white house with john roberts. >> it is one of the most important decisions the president can make, a choice that can last for decades, and it was a choice president trump says he thought long and hard about. >> i took the task of this nomination very seriously. >> he took the unprecedented step of publishing a list of possible nominees. it expanded to 21 before finally coming down to one tonight. >> judge gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline, and has
1:02 am
earned bipartisan support. when he was nominated to the 10th circuit court of appeals, he was confirmed by the senate unanimously. >> president trump will use that unanimous consent as a cultural against those who might oppose gorsuch in the senate. the judicial crisis network rolled out a $10 million ad buy in support of gorsuch. >> neil gorsuch, devoted to the constitution. >> gorsuch had even been named before opponents came to the streets to propose whoever would be nominated. they gathered at the supreme court. and in front of trump tower where a number of people were arrested for blocking traffic. judge gorsuch was among six finalists. of those, president trump interviewed for before settling on gorsuch last week. he called the judge yesterday and flew him by military jet from boulder to washington to keep him under wraps.
1:03 am
>> i would like to ask judge gorsuch and his wonderful wife, louise, to please step forward. >> the unveiling was pure trump, the choice when he believes his party will rally around. >> the qualifications of judge gorsuch are beyond dispute. he is a man of our country and a man our country really needs and needs better to ensure the rule of law and the rule of justice. >> the president hopes to have his newly minted nominee sometime in the next few days, and this, bret, could be just beginning as well, because 80-year-old justus anthony kennedy has been thinking about retiring. may see some comfort in seeing the tip of nominated president had has unveiled tonight. >> bret: one at a time, john. let's find out more about judge gorsuch, chief legal correspondent shannon bream has a report from the u.s. supreme court. >> pledging to do his utmost to
1:04 am
protect the constitution, neil gorsuch prays the man he hopes to replace, the late justice engines clear, who died suddenly nearly a year ago and echoed scalia's view of the role of the judiciary. >> and our legal order it is for congress and not the courts to write new laws. it is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. a judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge. >> he is considered to be as close match to scalia's style and philosophy as they could hope for. at columbia, he: kurt co-authoa paper -- he went on to harvard law school and was awarded a doctorate from oxford. >> he is super smart, he is a committed conservative, fidelity to the rule of law and our constitution, and a nice guy to boot. >> he wrote favorably of both hobby lobby and the little sister of the poor order of nuns when they challenge the
1:05 am
obamacare contraceptive mandate. he is pushed back and over criminalization and on granting federal agencies too much leeway. he says judges should never factor in their political convictions when reaching a and gorsuch is no stranger to the high court, having clerked for both justices byron white and anthony kennedy, and if confirmed, would be the first clerk to sit on the bench alongside his former boss now as a for justice. >> judge gorsuch is really a good pick to phil scully is quite big shoes, especially his big rhetorical shoes. he is a very good writer. >> and gorsuch is keenly aware of just how nasty a confirmation battle can be. writing in a 2005 national review essay, "nominees are now routinely subjected to ideological litmus tests, the busters, and vicious attacks postcard. gorsuch also, in that same piece, wrote that it had turned into political warfare. we will see if that is the case
1:06 am
for him. he has been called unanimously well-qualified by the not so conservative american bar association, and in 2006, he sailed through the senate with no opposition when he was confirmed to his current post. bret, we will save it is different this time around. >> bret: shannon bream putting in a long day. by the way, at the early sources on gorsuch with our producer. all right, shannon, thank you. despite his strong background, the resistance is already mobilizing on capitol hill, and so is the resistance to the resistance. chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel is watching out for us tonight. >> president trump's first supreme court nominate neil gorsuch received strong conservative praise. >> president trump promised the american people if he was elected he would nominate a principled constructionist con, and president trump kept his word. >> neil gorsuch is one of the most qualified people to ever be picked to serve on the supreme court, and i dare any democrat to make the argument he
1:07 am
is not qualified. >> democrats like senator ron wyden quickly attacked saying, "no senator that believes individual rights are reserved to the people and not the government can support this nomination. while chuck schumer said, "the burden is on judge neil gorsuch to prove himself to be within the political mainstream." the timing comes on a day when senate finance democrats boycotted a hearing to vote on the nominations of the next treasury and health and human services secretary's. and democrats on the judiciary made he forced a delay on voting on senator jeff sessions to be the next attorney general. after that trauma, majority leader mitch mcconnell called for gorsuch to be treated fairly. >> what i would expect from our democratic friends is the nominate be handled similarly to president clinton's two nominees in his first term and president obama's first two nominees and his term.
1:08 am
>> signaled he is ready to fight, saying the supreme court seat was stolen from president obama since judge merrick garland never got a vote, and said he want to be, "complicit in its theft." they senate's top democrat wing tip's strategy, but signaled they will be forced to work for confirmation. >> we explicitly put forward that 60 should stay on the supreme court, the reason for that is simple. without this is such an important position that it out to be bipartisan and mainstream in terms of the nominees. >> g.o.p. conference chairman said conference is fine but there is no reason for unnecessary delays. >> allow this nominee to have a process, to have hearings and do everything that we normally do. >> since this is the scalia seat, some democrats have suggested saving their major fight for a future opening, when it is quite possible that the ideological shift of the supreme court could be on the
1:09 am
line. bret? >> bret: >> bret: thank you, mae some reaction to president trump's head. sanity majority leader mitch mcconnell -- centage majority leader mitch mcconnell joins us >> the president handled this just right. the whole process was skillfully done. and he picks, by all accounts probably the outstanding federal circuit court judge and the whole country. >> bret: before i get to the immediate reaction from democrats, why is he the right pick? why is gorsuch the right to judge? >> he is a brilliant writer, he has a strict constructionist, he doesn't believe that judges are to make it up on the fly. they shouldn't legislate from the bench. and that is the kind of judge i think people would like to have in a position like that, not somebody who has cut favorites
1:10 am
or plays favorites in trying to reach decisions to reinforce their political biases. this guy is a truly outstanding choice. >> bret: house minority leader nancy pelosi was just on air a short time ago, and she said this about the appointment. >> it is a very hostile opponen opponent, well meant, lovely family, i'm sure, but as far as your family is concerned, if you breathe the air, drink water, take medicine, or in any other way to interact with the court, this is a very bad decision. while outside the mainstream of american legal thought. not committed to supreme court precedent. >> bret: went into great detail about women's issues and other issues as well. >> well, it's not the justices drop to play favorites. it is to call the balls and strikes. you get a case argued before
1:11 am
you, you see it as relevant precedent, there is no indication that he is not someone who would follow precedent. they democrats are going to object to whoever was appointed. if it hadn't been one argument, it would be another. the house won't have any involvement in this. this will be a senate issue. we are involved in confirming supreme court justices. a number of democrats have already indicated tonight that they don't think filibustering this judge is a good idea. i think that is an encouraging side that there are enough democrats with an open mind to judge this nominee on the merit merits. >> bret: you need eight. >> ultimately, yeah. >> bret: can you get eight? >> we'll find out, won't we? >> bret: how do you get eight? >> going to give the democrats an opportunity to look at this nominee. there will be ample opportunity to assess his credentials. i'm hoping at the end of the day
1:12 am
they will conclude that this nominee should be given what we call an up or down vote, not a procedural vote, and that is what happened to justice alito, for example. he was subsequently confirmed. >> bret: democrats say this, they say that they should fight and they should fight hard because of the weight you dealt with merrick garland. here is the senate minority leader talking on that issue. >> clearly what they did with garland was wrong, but we are not playing tit for tat here. we're not going to do with the republican state. but if the candidate is out of the mainstream, i can tell you, i will fight and my caucus will fight tooth and nail against him. they won't have 60 votes to put in and out of the mainstream nominee, then they have to make a choice to change the rules. going to be very hard for them to change the rules because there are a handful of republicans who believe in the institution of the senate and don't change the rules.
1:13 am
>> bret: you understand the pressure that will be on the democrats to hold the line, even these democrats from red states. >> the facts are not irrelevant with the garland nomination was in the middle of a presidential election year, not at the beginning of a term. the senate had not confirmed a vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year in eight years. this is the beginning of an administration. look at how bill clinton was treated and barack obama was treated. clinton had two nominees in his first term, both of them were confirmed. without a filibuster. obama had two nominees to the supreme court and his first term, both of them were confirmed without a filibuster. we were in the minority. we could have filibustered the judges. we didn't do it. last year's vacancy in the middle of a election year has nothing whatsoever to do with a vacancy at the beginning of a four-year term.
1:14 am
>> bret: there are other cases where nominees have been move forward in presidential election years though. >> you have to go back to 1888 defined the last time a supreme court vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year was confirmed by an office of the opposite party. one of barack obama's former white house counsel said if issue had been on the other foot they wouldn't have filled the vacancy. >> bret: this is just out today. this is neil gorsuch, too extreme for supreme court. it is 78 pages long. it is from american bridge, the super pac. this is a lot of stuff, a lot of pressure on these democrats. if you can't get the eight, are you going to use the nuclear option? are you going to change the rules? >> i'm not going to answer that. we are going to get this judge confirmed. >> bret: isn't that answering it. >> we are going to get the judge confirmed. >> bret: so you water? >> we are going to get the judge
1:15 am
confirmed. the democrats are not going to be in favor of anybody this republican president would nominate. that's where the way it is. we understand that. >> bret: look at the ties, they were four ties, 4-4 cases, 120 1265-4 decisions, this is the future of the court, gorsuch is. if you were in the minority, wouldn't he be fighting tooth and nail? >> i might. but donald trump won the election. that is for he is making this appointment instead of hillary clinton. there is nothing wrong with having a fight, but we intend to win the fight because we have got an outstanding nominee. already six democrats that have indicated they don't think he ought to be stopped with a filibuster. >> bret: before the vetting. >> the point is, the whole
1:16 am
process started tonight. he hasn't had a chance to make a single visit to any senator 's offices yet, we haven't had hearings yet. this is a great nominee. going to be very, very hard to oppose. so don't filibuster this nominee, they didn't even know who it was yet. >> sean: new mexico one what about the schedule? >> the senators got a lot going on, big fights over approving the president's candidate well, want to fight over everything these days, but a fight worth having, we intend to win. >> bret: elaine chao, your wife, now confirmed as transportation secretary. congratulations, i assume they senate minority leader voted against her. >> you would have to ask him about that. >> he said she would dance about the extreme vetting.
1:17 am
>> he was 1 of 6 democrats that opposed her. >> bret: what about that dustup about this executive order and how it was rolled out? >> i think general kelly had a press conference today to bore down on the details of it. he is the guy really in charge of homeland security, and i think we ought to look to him for how it was done and how it applies. i'm not going to speak for general kelly. he knows what he is doing and he is in charge of this executive order. >> bret: he didn't have a problem with how it was rolled out? >> probably would have been better to have done it over at the department of homeland security, but in the end, the rollout won't make a difference. it's what it actually does. and i think general kelly can explain that pretty thoroughly. >> bret: the agenda about
1:18 am
obamacare, these are big things, and there is still a lot of contention. will there be a 200 a strategy on those two big things? >> what we hope to do this year, talk to the house and the president, move forward with repealing and replacing obamacare. we have a number of the previous presidents executive orders and regulations we want to take off the books, and we think we have the ability to do that. going to start this week. then we are going to try to do comprehensive tax reform as well. all of these are very big, transformative issues. it is complicated, but i believe we have an excellent chance this year to get through repealing and replacing obamacare, confirming a supreme court justice, and newman conference of tax reform. all of that would make the first session of this.
1:19 am
>> bret: very optimistic considering you are only at three, maybe four, by tomorrow, nominees that have gone through the confirmation process. don't you see an obstructionist part of the senate that is going to cause problems? >> they are trying to. they have knuckled down. no honeymoon period for this president. but we are going to work her way through it, stay in session long enough to get through our agenda. >> bret: the debt ceiling, mid-march? >> that will have to be dealt with on the administration says it is time to come we are not going to default on our national debt for the first time in history. >> bret: busy time. >> indeed. >> bret: we appreciate your time, senator. when we come back, we'll meet a woman who worked as a law clerk for judge neil gorsuch. what was he really like? what don't we know? stay
1:20 am
1:21 am
1:22 am
1:23 am
♪ >> bret: now for some personal and professional life into judge neil gorsuch. a clerk for the judge at the tenth circuit court of appeals joins us tonight. thank you for being here. wendy knew clerk for him? >>m 2008 to 2009, a relatively young judge. >> bret: the tenth circuit is in denver. tell us something about him. obviously america is just meeting him, they will meet him much more over the coming days, but tell me about working for him. >> just an incredible experience. i think that for any lawyer working for any judge at that point early in the career really has a great impact on you. three things stick out to me from my time as clerk for him. one is his real deep reverence and love for the constitution and the rule of law, which came
1:24 am
forth on a daily basis. two was his deeply held belief in the role of the judge in our constitutional framework, which is that the judge is not there to play politics. the judge is there to enforce a law that congress wrote, the constitution that the founders drafted for us. and, three, just an incredibly kind, decent, good man. >> bret: we have a sound bite from april 2016 from a university school of law. >> it seems to me that an assiduous focus on text, structure, and history is essential to being a good judge. that, yes, judges should be in the basis of declaring what the law is using the traditional tools of interpretation rather than pronouncing the law as they might wish to be in light of their own views, always with a light on the outcome, some calculation of pleasures and pains along the way. it's the one that doesn't sound
1:25 am
like a guy with a great sense of humor. did he have a great sense of humor? >> a great sense of humor, really fun to clerk for, yep. >> bret: can you give me a sense of some kind of anecdote of you working for him that gives you a sense of the man? >> a sense of the man. i would just say one thing that folks will hopefully focus on in the coming days paid he is from the west and he does have this sort of sense of western grinchd intangible that is hard to explain. that will serve him well in the sense that there is a true independence to him that runs through his personal life and his judicial philosophy. >> bret: do you think he knew he was headed this way, that he was on to be considered for the supreme court? >> i don't have that insight into his mind, but he is a humble man to man, so i'm not . >> bret: when you see the
1:26 am
opposition already, 78 pages of opposition research that is already out and about, and you see democrats largely out on these tv shows talking about how he is outside the mainstream of legal thought. what do you think? >> i could not disagree more. i think he is a mainstream conservative judge. he is a originalist, he advised by those philosophies in all of his adjudication. >> bret: a family man? >> absolutely. he has been married for, i think my 20 years, 20 plus years, two beautiful daughters, spoke at them daily. he was on the phone with his wife i think multiple times a day in chambers. great family man. >> bret: can you tell us anything bad about him? >> i have really nothing, absolutely nothing. a great skier, a great hiker, i have nothing for you. >> bret: outdoorsman. >> great outdoorsman. >> bret: what did you right now? >> harvard law school, a
1:27 am
fellowship. >> bret: are you looking to become a judge? >> i would love to, but that's not the kind of thing one can plan out. >> bret: i appreciate your time. we'll be learning more about judge gorsuch and make coming days. >> thank you for having me. >> bret: have you ever wondered by supreme court nominations are so contentious? james rosen, our resident historian, as the answer when why do some cash back cards make earning bonus cash back so complicated? they limit where you can earn bonus cash back to a few places... ...and those places keep changing every few months. the quicksilver card from capital one doesn't do any of that. with quicksilver you earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere. leave complicated behind. what's in your wallet?
1:28 am
1:29 am
1:30 am
>> bret: as with one democratic senator already vowing to filibuster even before the nomination was known, the stages potentially set for another epic scotus showdown, scotus, supreme court of the united states. james rosen takes a look back at some of the most contentious such battles in recent memory. >> in all the acrimony surrounding the supreme court vacancy created by the death of
1:31 am
judge antonin scalia... >> i plan to fulfill my responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. >> this nomination will be filled by the next president elected in november. >> you might wonder when exactly scotus nominations grew so politicized. >> it is a -- >> it wasn't for clarence thomas, the disputed allegations of sexual harassment, you have to go all the way back to a friend and nominee of lyndon johnson who was forced to resign after the nixon white house leaked details of financial misconduct. they rejected president nixon's nominate to fill the opening. >> haynesworth was qualified but they were furious about the fortas debacle. >> i thought he was a big man when i nominated him to be on the supreme court. >> the senate quickly rejected his second choice who had a history of racist remarks.
1:32 am
finally they filled it with the judge that would go on to forge the majority opinion in roe vs. wade. >> landed much women would be forced into back alley abortions. >> most -- to the epic battle over reagan nominate robert bork, rejected by the senate in 1987, a brilliant legal mind, he fell prey to a concerted assault by democrats and allied interest groups. since then, liberal nominees like ruth bader ginsburg have usually sailed through while conservative nominees like samuel alito have faced reference lighting. >> a lot of hypocrisy on both sides. what it choses just important discipline court has become. such important issues, so closely balanced right now, that neither side wants to give in. >> since 1990, only two justices, ruth bader ginsburg and david souter have won 90 or more confirming votes in the
1:33 am
senate. in the 30 years before that, five justices won 90 or more confirming votes and three ascended to the high court on simple voice votes. stolen gems can we talks often about the strategies democrats may use in obstructing this nomination. do you think there are specific tactics we might expect to see the republicans adopt or steer clear of in their efforts to advance this nomination? >> sometimes the nominee's greatest threat comes from friendly fire. when president nixon nominated judge carswell, one of the strikes against him was that he was, well, mediocre. that led one of carswell's ardent defenders to ask, even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre charges and people and lawyers, they are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? we can't have all -- the nomination never recovered.
1:34 am
>> bret: james, thank you. let's get some more on the supreme court pick, ed whelan is president of the ethics and public policy center, he clerked for the late justice antonin scully appeared we have the president of the american constitution society. thank you for being here. ed, first to you. do you think, knowing what you know here and what you hear from capitol hill that democrats are prepared to move forward with a filibuster to try to block this nominee? >> the early signs that i see are the opposite, number of democratic senators who have said they are going to support an up or down vote on the senate floor, and i think the markerse there already for the democrats to say they are not going to fight this one to the mat. >> bret: do you agree? >> i think it is early in the process, the announcement has just come out, as i understand, judge gorsuch has 777 opinions he has written. it is going to take a little while for the democrats to
1:35 am
understand exactly where he sits in the spectrum of judicial decision-making. you know, we'll have to see. obviously it would be very unusual. filibusters of supreme court justices are few and far betwee between. but there is a long time between now and then. >> >> bret: there is this great picture of judge gore search with justice antonin scalia before his death. it says come into neil gorsuch, fond memories of the day in col, warm regards, antonin scalia. clearly he was looking up always to justice scalia not only in how he looked at things but also in how he wrote. it seems like judge gorsuch writes a lot like scalia wrote. >> he writes with verve and clarity and force. he is a joy to read. lots of folks will be discovering that in the coming days and weeks. but more than that, he rates
1:36 am
coherently and powerfully in a way that shows his dedication to original as him and textualism. he has the makings of a great justice. >> bret: carolyn, how can democrats characterize that as outside the mainstream if the mainstream of conservative thought when it comes to jurisprudence is basically that? speak i think what we have to do is put this in context. a lot of the concern comes from the fact that president trump meant during the campaign, put out a litmus test that he said he was running by the candidates who had put on his list. in that they had to meet a certain test about how they will rule on specific cases. so i think that is troubling. it is particularly troubling when there been a number of issues raised about the president, financial entanglements, ethical problems, and the most recent issue with the muslim band. and then the firing of sally yates. the american public really wants to know that the supreme court
1:37 am
is going to be an independent body and that this litmus test doesn't somehow indicate that whoever is selected is going to be too willing to rule in favor of the president. i think that it's going to be a discussion. the senate is going to want to examine his record, going to want to meet with him, they are going to want to have hearings and really investigate thoroughly his background and his willingness to indicate whether he is an independent thinker or whether he is not. >> bret: caroline, do you see anything in his past, and his opinions, and his tenth circuity leads you to believe that he will not be independent? >> i think we have to have the record speak for himself. for example, does he think religious liberty is fostered by this muslim man and how will he -- will he be an independent voice. i think we have to look at what the president himself said. he said it multiple times, it is something that i think the
1:38 am
senate and the democrats in particular are going to want to have a thorough fighting. >> bret: ed, your response that. >> president obama's top supreme court lawyer has already come out supporting judge gorsuch. you've had months and months where they could look at his record, it is empty. this is someone who has a stellar record, folks can try to taint them with other stuff that they don't like about president trump. on his merits, this is an easy call. >> bret: ed come on what about the feelings of democrats who say, really this is president obama seeks to fill and it should have been merrick garland to got the hearing. >> that ignores the reality, first of all, that senate republicans had the full authority to act as they did create everyone who understands the process knows that democrats
1:39 am
would have done exactly the same thing if the situation had been reversed. president obama's former white house counsel concedes as much. this whole thing about this was supposedly president obama's seat to fail, just isn't a serious one. it is a seat that came up in an election year. everyone understands election-year seats are going to be more volatile. the republicans fault on this, they won, this is president trump's seat to fill. >> bret: caroline, i know we have a lot of hearings to go. >> i have to say, not to relitigate things that we argued about last year, justice kennedy was appointed in the final year of a president's term, second term -- >> a vacancy that rose -- >> he was still appointed. that happened six times in the past century. we can relitigate at that. i don't like to think about supreme court seats as a battle of u.n. die. i think we got to think about
1:40 am
what is best for the country. holding a seat hostage for partisan reasons i think it's very unfortunate. >> bret: let me get your predict. do they get the eight democrats to get to 60, caroline? >> i think it is going to be a process of examination and thorough vetting, will have to see. >> bret: ed, you're pretty confident? >> there will be no filibuster effort. the final margin might involve fewer than 60 efforts to make votes if they want to massage it that way. >> bret: add caroline appreciate the time you just heard it, we're going to hear what the panel thinks come on the reaction from them, stay
1:41 am
1:42 am
1:43 am
1:44 am
♪ >> today i am keeping another promise to the american people by nominating judge neil gorsuc neil gorsuch. judge gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline, and has earned bipartisan support. >> if i am confirmed, i will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the constitution and laws of this great country. in our legal order, it is for congress and not the courts to write new laws. it is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. >> bret: well, that is the pick, judge neil gorsuch, made tonight by president trump. charles hurt, opinion editor for "the washington times." national political correspondent of national public radio. mollie hemingway, senior editor at "the federalist," and charles krauthammer. i'm getting all these tweets that i should have pointed out in the last segment that when it was said it was a muslim ban
1:45 am
that is not a muslim ban because of indonesia and other countries, the 40-such countries that are not included in the muslim ban, that is fine. we were talking supreme court pick. just want to clarify. your thoughts on this pick and the back-and-forth that we have heard already. >> this is an absolutely wonderful pick to fill scalia's seat. neil gorsuch is incisive. his writing is so clear. he is very much in the mold of a scalia in that he is delightful to read. he is very good on religious liberty, which is a very important issue we have at this moment. he sided with hobby lobby and the little sisters of the poor in their fight to protect their lead number religious liberty. he ruled that prisons could not violate the religious liberty of prisoners, native american prisoners, very strong on that issue. very strong on peeling back against the overreach of the administrative state prayed he wants to support the balance of powers and have congress take responsibility for the rules and laws that is issuing and not
1:46 am
have unelected bureaucrats having so much sway over people's lives. he is just solid as a rock. >> bret: elizabeth warren said president trump had a opportunity to select a consensus nominee, he failed that, based on the long-established record of judge gorsuch, i will oppose his nomination. senate majority leader at mcconnell and others suggest that there are some democrats who are saying they are not going to filibuster. >> that is the problem now, this was, i will say, in some ways, the most ordinary day of the administration so far. this is what you would expect from a new republican president. he picked the most qualified conservative justice for the supreme court. battle lines are drawn and they are very typical. you would expect the democrats not to vote for this nominee. the only issue is, will they filibuster. the interesting thing, what has
1:47 am
happened so far in the previous nine days of the trump administration is that the democratic space has become enraged and engage and is putting pressure on their leaders to not cooperate in any way, shape, or form. they want everyone of those senators to vote no. if that happens and the democrats to filibuster, they have a decision to make just like harry reid did on other nominations. will he pull the trigger on the nuclear option? no matter what happens, donald trump is going to get his person on the supreme court. one way or the other. 60 votes or 51 create >> bret: i don't often hear on the panel quote from mark cuban's tweets, but the businessman who supported the democrats and hillary clinton had a couple tonight. "if dems they will ask potus what they can get from him in exchange for a quick scotus approval. negotiate with the negotiator. or dems can do business as usual, treat him like a politician, how did that work
1:48 am
out in the election?" >> going back to what was said, because their base is going to be so upset with them, but i also think, think about this, this is a scalia seat, for them to sort of begrudgingly go along and get gorsuch involved would not be a loss on the court, just status quo. the real thing is what happens with the next pick, if there is one in the next three years that trump picks, and if they force mcconnell's hand and make them go the route of the nuclear option, that he will have already used the nuclear option months and it will be very easy to do it a second time. >> be easy for him to do it the next time even if he doesn't this time. >> makes it all that much easier. >> bret: sometimes they are not in the majority. >> that, to me, is the vital
1:49 am
difference between the situation democrats are in now and the situation republicans were in with merrick garland. with merrick garland, voters had given republicans control of the senate, so they were able to hold back up. voters did not give democrats control of the senate right now, and therefore, being the minority, they can't hold up the nominee. >> which is why cuban is wrong. there is no need to negotiate quick approval because the republicans are guaranteed of getting approval one way or the other for three reasons. the republicans hold the senate, the republicans hold the white house, and thanks to the blessed harry reid, there is no precedent to be set by deploying the nuclear option. reid did this with open eyes in 2013, they wanted to pack the lower courts, so they abolished
1:50 am
they filibuster, which is one of the reasons, incidentally, why all of the nominees, i think all the nominees for the cabinet, are going to go through, apply also to presidential appointments. no filibuster talk because of hear a read. we ought to erect a statue to harry reid somewhere now. for mitch mcconnell -- >> bret: did not say supreme court nominees. >> here is the point. once harry reid close to the floor of the senate, with a simple majority vote, overturns 40 years of precedent, but he has said is, there are no rules. this place is run by the majority and we will decide. that is but he declared. the reason it's important is because mcconnell is a traditionalist, and it would have been very hard for him to have been the one to trigger the nuclear option had it not been done by harry reid. >> bret: but there are many traditionalists up on the hill who say, if you do this, despite
1:51 am
what democrats have done in the past, then the senate becomes the house, and it is no longer the deliberative body that it was meant to be by the founders, which judge gorsuch relies on in his interpretation of the law. >> that might very well be true. i also think it might not get to that point. it is hard to get people to sign onto a filibuster. democrats tried to filibuster alito. already you're hearing people say they don't want to filibuster this nominee in part because of their very strong rhetoric that they issued when merrick garland was nominated. they are kind of between a rock and a hard place. >> bret: some different senate reaction from tonight. >> there is going to be an enormous number of senators who decide that this person is not suitable because it will not honor our we the people vision. >> the senate will confirm judge gorsuch. the democrats are not going to
1:52 am
succeed in filibustering this nomination. >> i am going to be scrutinizing his record, going to be asking tough questions, because this court is an appointment for a lifetime, and we need to make sure that we do the right thing here. >> this president, one, he deserves the right to pick qualified people, and this is one of the most qualified people i've ever met. >> bret: some of the reaction. somebody wrote in that this was just empty paper that i was flipping, but it's actually not. it is 78 pages from american bridge, and it is all about judge gorsuch. >> i wonder if elizabeth warren read all about. >> bret: i don't think she did. go through all of these cases and why they are wrong. obviously all of these outside groups are going to spend a ton of money -- >> it is going to be an epic fight. as much a fight between people that did that and democrats in the congress, the senate, as between republicans. one thing i think is important
1:53 am
to remember, the recently senate is the deliberative body has nothing to do with the filibuster. it has to do with the fact that the senate is elected every six years, and originally, senators were elected by states and not by people. so this reverence that -- and i get it. i covered judicial nominations for a long time. there is this great reverence that builds up for the filibuster. come on, it is a procedural rule of the senate. it is not in the constitution, and it is not something -- that is not what makes the senate special. >> bret: you look at those cases, 126 of them decided 5-4 committee decisions, just the last four work 4-4. so the fifth seat is going to be a huge seat. >> really, really important, this will restore the status qu status quo, and then everybody gets ready for the next battle which really will be the big change battle for the next opening.
1:54 am
i think, when you heard republican senators to date reacting with relief and joy about this, this reminds everyone, every republican and conservative who held their nose and voted for donald trump, this is why they were doing this. and after the rocky weekend we had with republicans tearing their hair out about the immigration order for a variety of reasons -- >> bret: some of them. >> some of them. some of them just because it was a mess in the process was a mess. this unifies republicans and reminds them why elections matter. >> bret: but today was a good day for president trump. >> no doubt. >> it was a great day. the fact that this was an announcement in prime time, the fact that we are on all night long on this, indicates how central the supreme court has become, how in effect liberals, and it is liberals, have turned it into a super legislature. you can start with roe if you
1:55 am
want, a dozen reasons why it is an abomination. it took the power of the court for an entire issue, which of out of the country it really is passionate about, to take it completely out of the political arena so you get demonstrations once a year for 40 years which will not cease, and it reminds us that the court has so overstepped. 50 years ago, people were not fighting over court apartments like this because the stakes were lower and the stakes should be lower, and that is what this nominee stands for. lower the sticks with the supreme court. >> bret: final word. >> this is why so many people voted for donald trump. i think people were nervous about that vote in some cases under extremely relieved tonight that he didn't just nominate a justice but the best of the names he put forward. this will do a lot to continue to build that goodwill between the voters sent him. >> bret: sort of a collective
1:56 am
exhale in republican circles. thanks, panel, when we return commit some final thoughts and programming notes . .
1:57 am
1:58 am
>> bret: make a note to watch a special report at its usual time 6:00 p.m. eastern time. tomorrow i'll be interviewing committee chairman chuck grassley about the process for supreme court nominee. will be on the road later this week. at the show will come to live from abilene, kansas at the dwight eisenhower presidential museum. we'll talk with kansas governor. we know a little bit about that museum. friday we are live from los angeles with a special panel. the reagan library and the nixon library, as our tour continues. thanks for inviting us into your our home today. that's it for this special edition of "special report" ." edition of "special report" ." >> keeping another promise to the american people by nominate ing niel gorsich.
1:59 am
heather: wednesday february 1st, president trump nominateing niel gorsich and not even ten minutes later, democrats already protesting. a fierce battle now between republicans an democrats, we are live in washington. abby: drama and delay boiling over on capitol hill. the white house slamming democratic senator for blocking president trump's key members. >> it's getting ridiculous. democrats are boycotting the committee vote is outrageous. >> the votes on hold and nominees prepared for hot seat today. >> you don't look like you're from around here.
2:00 am
heather: the politically motivated super bowl ad that's sparking outage. "fox & friends first" starts right now. abby: we always love waking up to that song. a lot of lights on this early in the morning. only in new york city. good morning, you're watching "fox & friends first" on this wednesday, i'm abby huntsman. heather: and i'm heather childers, first day of february, can you believe it in supreme court showdown of monumental proportion. abby: president trump nominate ing niel