grassley voted against garland because he did not want the d.c. court of appeals to expand or stay at 11 members. he thought it was a waste of taxpayer money. that's what democrats will hone in on, saying grassley had no problem with him in the past. same from orrin hatch. now, in terms of procedure -- >> i'm going to cut you off. >> there you go. >> the president and judge garland are coming out to the microphones. accompanied by the vice president. >> good morning. everybody please have a seat. of the many powers and responsibilities that the constitution vests in the presidency, few are more consequential than appointing a supreme court justice. particularly one to succeed justice scalia, one of the most influential jurists of our time. the men and women who sit on the supreme court are the final arbiters of american law. they safeguard our rights. they insure that our system is one of laws and not men. they're charged with the essential task of applying principles put to paper more than two centuries ago, to some of the most challenging questi

. >> chuck grassley do? he is up. he has to think about a general election now. >> he does have to worry about a general election but you don't want to hurt all your base. so i think grassley will stay put. this is a base election for both sides. and i don't think garland will bring out those activists in any way, shape or form on either side. that's probably a good thing. some people care about process, not many voters. they care more about bigger issues. this is not going to be about the supreme court. this is about economics and what are you going to do for me personally and have you been a good senator. one of the thing is that hurt rubio is he spent so much time campaigning and not enough time being a senator which hurt him back in the missed state. >> i don't know about the missed votes hurt him, you're not doing the job we hired you to do, you're moving too fast in the age of obama. if there's no barak obama, i'm not sure that story line would hurt him. republicans believe barak obama moved up the chain way too

>> do we know when that meeting will happen with chuck grassley? >> we do not. we just know he spoke with him by phone and publicly said i will meet with him. but it is different than any other supreme court battle we have seen. >> ari, thanks so much. from new york. let's flip over to washington. president obama's court pick is meeting with democrats today. merrick garland just wrapped up a meeting in fact on capitol hill with senator patrick deahy, ranking member, as ari just said, ranking member of the senate judiciary committee. let's break in luke russert on that. what did we learn from pat leahy? >> if this was a normal process, he would come here and this would be the first step. you meet the member of the party of the president who is relevant on the judiciary committee. in this case, senator leahy of vermont. they had a very positive meeting. senator leahy said he with like to see a confirmation vote done by may 25th. mitch mcconnell will not allow that to happen. and take a listen to lachey's comments on the meeting. >> an unprecedented number of reces

i do think that senator grassley should call hearings. we have had hearings over the last 100 years since 1916 for every one who has been nominated or no one has been denied one. and this is not the time to start. this is our job, you know, justice scalia died with 11 months left in the president's term. the president is president for four years. we senators have six-year terms. we should do our jobs. >> if it looks like the democrats are way ahead in the presidential race, do you think it will be some move by democratic senators to want to wait and see what the next president -- who the next president might choose who could be more progressive, more liberal choice than the consensus choice of judge garland? >> i think that all this gaming, political gaming about the court is just a bad idea. and i think that this sets a very unhealthy precedent for the court. you know, washington has become so politicized. this is why i wanted someone who the american people say i want nine of these. i want people on that court that are going to decide b

court of appeals, and battling him then, as now, was senator chuck grassley. but this is a more volatile time. bigger time, and this is a major issue in the presidential race. i want to bring in nbc's justice correspondent, pete williams. pete, you know merrick garland, you've known him for years, and i was watching him in the rose garden and thinking, wow, it takes a certain personality, a certain temperament to put yourself in this situation, and why someone might say, even to the president of the united states, i have no interest in being a sacrificial lamb. tell us about his personality and how you see him playing this. >> i think it does take an exception personality and i think he's dedicated to public service. there has to be a nominee and he's willing to step up and play that role. and at the same time, i think the white house is hoping that even though the republicans say now they won't give a home, if a democrat is elected in november, though many in the white house are thinking, the senate might stop and think, maybe it would be better to confirm me

one of the people leading that is chuck grassley. grassley took a political swipe in a political article published a few moments ago saying, quote, with all the troubles she's getting on e-mail and the fbi will want to question her, i would think she would want to change the tone of her campaign. the "new york times" are stating that they are in the process of setting up interviews with long-time clinton aides, and the "washington post," that clinton aides warned security warnings. joel, it's good to have you with me. the "washington post," that's pretty alarming as people get down to the nitty-gritty and read that. 64% believe they have a trust issue when it comes to hillary clinton. does the fbi investigation suggest that hillary clinton was acting with political entitlement or just with bad judgment? >> secretary clinton has addressed this. the "washington post" had absolutely no new ground in there. the "new york times" story, secretary clinton has encouraged everybody who was involved in her e-mails and servers to answer questio

chuck grassley the chairman has been in iowa over this recess week and has reiterated that moving forward with the hearing would simply just be political theater, that they don't need to be a part of. now, whether or not there's any break in the dam will be interesting to see. if kirk comes out and says you know what, i think this guy is very qualified that starts to get some momentum, maybe, just maybe you see a bit of a brea, but mcconnell is pretty steadfast. >> we'll be waiting to see what he has to say. luke russert, thanks for that. >>> ahead, wisconsin governor and former presidential candidate scott walker, about 15 minutes from now he is expected to announce who he will be endorsing in the republican race for president. this is a critical endorsement. wisconsin and the next state up, wisconsin's home walker has suggested that trump might not be the best candidate, but could backi ining one of trump's riva carrying him to victory. >>> im tights for the your business entrepreneur of the week, he hated leaving his beloved pooch at the kennel when he went out of town. he knew there h

you've had senator grassley talk about keeping politics out of nominations. i wasn't even around when things were said. but now i'm here. what i know is that the president has nominated an incredibly qualified person. someone who oversaw the prosecutions of the oklahoma city bomber and the unibomber. someone who today stood in the rose garden and choked up just at the thought that it is not just about his nomination but really about the future of an independent judiciary. and yes people have to do their jobs and we have to have hearing. that's what i hope we do. you already have senator flake and senator collins saying that they would meet with the nominee and in fact senator collins said she has to do her job. >> one thing i want to tell everyone, senator, before we had ken kuch nelly on, surrogate for ted cruz and i was asking about cruz's position about merrick garland. he has a statement saying a so-called democratic nominee is the so-called field that donald trump said he with make someone who would rule along with other liberals on the bench like justic

mcconnell, said he will not allow for a hearing or he does not want a hearing to move forward, and chuck grassley of iowa, the senate judiciary committee, has agreed with that, no hearing, no vote. essentially the idea that came out right after scalia passed away in february. it will be interesting to see if more meetings like this of moderate republicans or republicans that are open to the constitutional process playing forward, such as having a hearing, will put any dents in the dam that mcconnell has erected. all that being said, i think mcconnell is a master chess player when it comes to politics. he's comfortable with some of his more moderate members, running against him on this issue. and he believes that any conservative backlash he would get for allowing garland to be seated on the court, perhaps seating it 5-4 in favor of democrats is way worse than any negative op-ed he could get from a mainstream newspaper or democrats bashing him for saying he's not abiding, or what has been tradition here on capitol hill. it's a gamble for mcconnell, but one he's comfortable with. >> and interesting

chairman grassley saying a majority of the senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by wholing support of the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged contests. republican meeting on the hill with judge garlands. others say they're open, but not open to a hearing or a vote. all this on the backdrop that you reported, the supreme court deadlocking 4-4 on a big labor case. >> we're going to talk more about that in the next couple days. i think it's an important one. thanks. >> gofor more on this, let me bring in tammy baldwin of wisconsin. talking politics as we always do. what a pleasure to see you. >> it's a pleasure to see you, too. >> thanks. you know, the republican leadership continues to say it's not going to act on any supreme court nomination made by president obama, but at least 16 republican senators say they'll at least meet with garland. what do you make of that? >> well, it's a step in the right direction. you know, the president has done his constitutional duty by sending us jud

as has chuck grassley, the chairman. we'll see if they hang on to that. that is unheard of, at least in recent memory. >> another big piece of news, not supreme court related, but you know capitol hill, you know john boehner well. look at this headline in the last few minutes. john boehner, the former house speaker saying this morning he packs paul ryan for president. if it gets to convention, he would like the convention to turn to paul ryan and not one of the current candidates. >> john boehner says a lot of things. sometimes at these private events, he goes off the cuff, especially if they're spirited events or if he has good friends around him. his spokesman, i reached out to him. he said, look, he's already backing john kasich. he was simply talking about a hypothetical. remember, john boehner is the guy who pushed paul ryan into the speakership, when all out catholic guilt on him. basically made him take the job. this scenario is a little different. i personally from covering paul ryan do not think that he would be receptive of this. he does not nec

illinois has, for example, but i think that the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and senator grassley, the chair of the senate judiciary committee have drawn such a line in the sand that it would be hard for them to back track. i think they will have very strong support from the republican base who care an awful lot about the second amendment and abortion. >> jason, on friday, senator mark kirk became the first republican senator to call for a vote on marerrick garland's nomination after pressure from some of these outside groups we listed. progressers are targeting him and five other senators in tough re-election battles that they're going through. if you're kelly ayotte or rob portman, what is your next move? >> basically to stall. the next move is to stall as long as you can. look, a lot of these republicans certainly in blue states, they were delusional if they thought this wasinate going to become a campaign issue. you also have to remember, these guys are worried about being primaried. they have concerned that the kid gloves are going to be off and someone is going to attack the

one key person to watch is chuck grassley of iowa. he visits all 99 counties in iowa. he has a real grassroots approach to his home state, and if he hears a lot of pushback, perhaps he would have some sway with mitch mcconnell. some of the republicans who have been quoted saying they would be willing to consider a garland nomination, should hillary clinton be the victor in november, they're responding to questions and those who have said that they might be open to that. jeff flight of arizona is often a more moderate, willing to reach across the aisle kind of republican. that is different than what would be sanctioned from the republican leadership. and that's the key here. individual senators will maybe open the door. leadership is what we have to watch. >> orrin hatch said he would consider a lame duck hearing. luke russert, this is a classic battle. this confirmation battle in an election year, no less, and in fact, a lame duck session might be something they would consider on lame duck hearings not just hillary clinton but what if donald trump were the victor? some

mitch mcconnell spoke to him by phone and the judiciary chairman, chuck grassley but personal meetings not expected. there are a few republicans who are considered vulnerable in their own reelections. democrats could easily be elected and they have opened the door to the pobt ssibility of meetings and a moderate republican, not up for reelection and said she would be happy to have that meeting. what we will see today is that senator harry reid and the top democrat, patrick leahy, will have the conversation and the personal time with merritt garland. what matters here is that that is normally sort of a checking of the box that's done for a supreme court nominee going through first, the whole committee of the judiciary, which would make the first several steps in processing a nomination, and then it would go more broadly to, in some cases, all 100 senators. but for merritt garland, someone widely praised from both parties and held in great esteem for s accomplishments, there are road blocks and it does not appear that there are going to be any breaks in that just yet. i should mention, k

so you have this crazy thing this week where chuck grassley and mitch mcconnell, they took a phone call with the nominee, but couldn't meet him in person because of the stance they have taken. that said, i'm even a little cynical about the mark kirk. mark kirk is running for the senate in illinois where the democrats are going to win the presidential nomination. i'm sure he told mitch mcconn l mcconnell, i'll going on out there in public criticizing. and michigtch mcconnell was lik what you have to do. so now we have 8 people of the 54 saying i will consider meeting with the person we're nowhere near a hearing yet. still looking pretty strong to me. >> let me play what mark kirk said more. he was on the radio on "the big john howell show" in chicago, and here is what mark kirk had to say. it was more than just i'm going to maybe talk to him. take a listen. >> just man up and cast a vote. the tough thing about the senatorial jobs, you get yes or no votes. your whole job is to either say yes or no. and explain why. >> mark kirk is considered the most vulnerable senator up for re-election.

but either chuck grassley, chairman of judiciary, who are getting a lot of heat back home, not just from their editorial pages, from a lot of republican leaders have said this, and they will crack. and i think the likelihood is we will have hearings and a vote. i can't predict how this will come out. but you know these hearings are sort of magical. if the nominee comes off very well, they get appointed and confirmed and we've had that. two democrats and two republicans, the last four justices on the court, two by democrat, two by republican, both approved by bipartisan majorities. the hard right's approved that once there are hearings, a guy like garland will get on, but i believe there are going to be hearings. and there's one other point, chris. that is this. now that trump looks like the front-runner, a lot of people are going to say, i don't want donald trump choosing my nominee. let's go with this guy. i think republicans might say that. >> what would you the -- you're the smartest guy on the hill, as far as i'm concerned. >> thank you. >> what were you do you were stuck in a positi

what did they do in iowa circuit court judge started because they're afraid grassley might get the nod from the president, so they went after this good woman who is on the circuit court covering iowa. remember what o'connell said right after obama was elected. their number one goal is to defeat obama. number one goal. and he said it publicly, that was admirable and that's what they attempteded to do. make sure obama was not re-elected they failed miserably and he's going to fail miserably at this. they cannot succeed in the position they've taken. it totally against the american people. doesn't matter how much money the koch brothers spend. we're going to continue with our message, all we want them to do is their jobs. >> talk about what the strategy is over the next two weeks while republicans are back home. how will you apply pressure to them? how do you think that will be successful? >> a lot of the pleasure applied by you folks. i think the stories have been commendable recognizing what an important issue this is and i'm going to try, when i go home, make sure you have more to talk

in this case, chuck grassley. these meetings rpt happening. the reason why is that the republicans said look, we are going back to what we said after justice scalia died. we want to have the american people make this decision. it is not the person. we might like judge garland now. we may have liked him in the past. it's our principle. take a listen to what judge mcconnell said about this. >> we think the people have a voice in this instance and the president does not. so we act as a check and balance. >> senator reid of nevada has been very forceful saying this is a huge breach of protocol. you may not like that president obama is a president and gets to make the selection but he has over 200 days left in his presidency. not to mention that every single nominee in recent history has at least had a meeting with the judiciary committee and hearing before the judiciary committee. a lot of conservatives bring up how he is not grate killed off a nomination years ago. the different between what bjork and mcconnell are doing, they say, at least have

that ranges from people like senator kirk, who as you just heard the reporting, people like chairman grassley, who capitol hill producer, i was talking to his office today, it's fair to say at this point, he hasn't decided whether or not to do a meeting, and fulfill the support by withholding during a presidential election, millions of votes being cast in highly charged contests. republicans are arguing whether or not they do a one-on-one, that will be the end of the line. white house officials say this it in tenable. it will give more pressure, and they believe judge garland as orrin hatch once put it, a con s c consensus pick. >> why the emergency response from egypt and cyprus is being praised as a model for mid east relations. >> you're goi when you think what does it look like? is it becoming a better professor by being a more adventurous student? is it one day giving your daughter the opportunity she deserves? is it finally witnessing all the artistic wonders of the natural world? whatever your definition of success is, helping you pursue it, is ours. t-i-a-a. i accept i do a shorter i

it will also be interesting to see whether or not judge -- or chairman grassley, the judiciary committee will have a meeting with him and whether mcconnell will have a meeting with him. you mentioned he'll have republicans -- i suspect those will probably be from blue states who are up for re-election who will want that photo op, hey, at least we're willing to meet with the nominee. craig? >> luke rhussert on capitol hill. thank you. let's bring in bill nelson of florida along with joey reid who is here with me in cleveland. senator, let's start with you. this republican strategy, not to even take up the president's nominee. how does that work? would you have a chief judge show up at a senator's office and the senator essentially say i don't have time for you? >> well, the judge ought to show up because the senate ought to do its job and the constitution says the president nominates and the senate then advises and consents. and so, if we're doing our constitutional duty we certainly ought to receive the judge and have a hearing for him and bring him up for a vote. by the way, this seems

increase on him, and that he'll at least be forced to tell the chairman of the judiciary committee, chuck grassley, to move forward with a hearing. we'll see. they're pretty adamant they're not going to do that. every single one of these photo ops is a push, a push, and the more and more republicans who meet judge garland and say he's qualified, had a good conversation with him. at least give him a hearing, maybe that changes things. right now, mcconnell is pretty steadfast, no hearing, no vote. we'll see. >> luke russert, good to see you. thank you. >>> coming up, why marco rubio wants to hold on to his delegates until the convention. i'll have that for you next. why are you all here? to learn, right? so you can get a good job and you're not working for peanuts. well what if i told you that peanuts can work for you? while you guys are busy napping, peanuts are delivering 7 grams of protein and 6 essential nutrients right to your mouth. you ever see a peanut take a day off? no. peanuts don't even get casual khaki fridays. because peanuts take their job seriously. so unless you want a life of skimm

so mitch mcconnell and chuck grassley, the judiciary chairman, they have a situation on their hands. they have to figure out now. i think they were preparing for president obama perhaps to make a nominee that would fire up one of the bases within the democratic party, either the asian american base, the african-american base, the latino base. by doing this, he's saying, look, here's someone who you liked in 2010. got 76 votes back in the '90s. prosecuted terrorists, what's the problem here? you won't even give him a hearing. that's where they sit. >> yeah, and i mean, luke, let's talk about that. because there's a hearing, there's a confirmation and a whole senate vote. but before that, it's pretty amazing, and we talk about it in the world of politics. but the fact that some of them have said, some elected officials in the senate said they wouldn't even meet with the nominee. not even meet with him. and luke, you know this from our conversations in spanish. being courteous doesn't make you any less valiant. it just makes you not courteous. we have gotten to the point where people ar