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

committees in the entire united states senate. this has been the case for 200 years. 200 years. the senate judiciary committee was established 200 years ago. in 1816 it was one of the original 118 standing committees 20 decades passed, that's how long the committee's been in operation. throughout history judiciary committee chairs have wielded immense power and president martin van buren, when he was in the senate, senator ted kennedy, senator arlen specter, senator joe biden, judiciary chairmen have prized their independence and guarded it from being man handled. the past chairmen stood firm and faced opposition from presidents and senate leadership. at crucial times in american history, the senate and the nation have looked to the judiciary committee to do the right thing. during the civil war, chairman liman trumble and his committee authored the 13th amendment. the 13th amendment abolished slavery during the civil war. we know during that period of time there was great consternation as to what should be done. even the great pr

this will epitomize the work in the united states as a senator. whatever they may have accomplished will be secondary. remember, our job is here to vote. that is what we saw to do. the constitution is clear on this issue. so the stakes should be higher for senator grassley than the other republican senators. why? because as judiciary chairman sen. grassley presides over on of theone of the most important and prestigious committees and the entire senate. this is been the case for 200 years. one of the original 11 standing committees, that is how long the committee has been in operation. historically prizing independence and guarded it at all costs from being manhandled for partisan purposes. crucial times in american history that have looked to the judicial committee to do the right thing. the chairman and his committee off of the 13th amendment to abolish slavery during the civil war. we know there was great consternation as to what should be done, even the great president lincoln had trouble deciding during the early days of the civil war. the ch

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

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

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

states senate, that there needs to be diversity of race and ethnicity in the united states senate. i am proud to have their support. what i will not have is a super p.a.c. spending money on my campaign that then spends $55 million to lobby congress for who knows what and who knows what they expect out of mr. van hollen in return. that's what the realtors are doing. emily's list is supporting a pro-choice democratic woman. to bruce for the war on terror. bruce: thank you, scott. the next question is about isis. this is for you, mr. van hollen. president obama has been criticized by some saying he hasn't done enough to contain and eliminate isis. has the president acted swift enough? how can the u.s. put pressure on other nations to play a more prominent role here? mr. van hollen: yeah, i think the president has acted swiftly with respect to isis. he has been leading the effort to bring together an allied coalition. he's been making sure we provide training and weapons to the iraqi forces. and the kurdish forces and they have pushed back isis in the area. we also need to be continuin

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

states senate, would ignore a lawful subpoena of the united states senate. it's particularly outrageous given that backpage has already admitted that serious criminal activity, including sex trafficking of children, occurs on its site. backpage simply has no excuse for not complying with these legal subpoenas. during our november 19 hearing, i promised that while the subcommittee would move forward carefully and cautiously, we would not go quietly into the night. and on some day in the near future, we would use the senate's enforcement measures to compel cooperation from backpage. today is that day. and while we stay focused on that 15-year-old girl, i know i speak for the chairman. and i want to give the chairman great accolades for our working relationship. it's not always easy to reconcile differences in positions and differences in policy and staffs working together, but he doesn't give up, and we both stay at it, and we are both determined to work on this committee in a bipartisan fashion. and i'm very grateful to him for his effort in that regard. but

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

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

senator is to confirm justices of the united states supreme court, which is right behind us. yesterday president obama did fulfill his constitutional duty. he did his job in nominating judge merrick to the supreme court. as senator reid has said, he is a highly qualified, distinguished individual who deserves an up or down vote to the highest court in the land. despite this nomination, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle refused to do their job, refusing to even move forward, refusing to even meet with him, refusing to hold hearings, or to have a vote. now i heard someone say, it's not about the person, it's about the principle. well first of all the american , people know that this president has announced an eminently qualified person to the united states supreme court. we believe in the principle of doing our job. that's why we are here. not only does judge garland have stellar credentials and experience, he was confirmed as chief judge of the d.c. court of appeals 76-23. seven of those republican votes came from members currently serving. so, we stand with workin

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

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

states senate. i have read that senator grassley and senator mcconnell and others will meet with president obama this week and i hope they meet. i hope they sit together and recondition sile their differences because this issue needs to be put to rest. we call on senate republicans to hold hearings once president obama submits his nomination and follow the procedures set forth in the constitution. in short and in closing, the congressional black caucus, the 45, 46 members of the congressional black caucus, and indeed the american people, have one message, one message for senate republicans. do your job. don't play partisanship. don't play a partisan game with the supreme court. -- supreme court of the united states of america. its taos serious, it's too important -- it's too serious, it's too important. thank you very much. mr. jeffries: thank you for pointing out that this is a simple question for senate republicans. do your job. consistent with your obligations and responsibilities under article 2

states senate. believing with his big re-election majority and the fact that most of the members of congress had supported his new deal agenda, that they would stand by him when it came to changing the supreme court so that it would start ruling his way. he was wrong. what happened then was that members of the united states senate decided to stand up to their president and to stand up for the constitution. a little-known senator from arizona, henry ashe herst, was the chairman of the senate judiciary committee. he deliberately delayed the f.d.r. court-packing proposal to a point where when it was finally called it was overwhelmingly defeated. think about that. in the context of our current debate about filling this supreme court vacancy created by the untimely death of justice scalia. in that case in 1937, the senate judiciary committee and its chairman stood up for the constitution first over and above even the president of their own political party. this was a popular president, and yet they belie

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

states and the constitution enough to do your job right here in the united states senate. >> massachusetts senator elizabeth warren doing her job picking a fight in washington that connects the republican parties freak out over extremism in its on presidential race with the need to say no to extremism in governance like refusing to consider a supreme court nominee for vacancy for a solid year. senator, i appreciate you being here. nice to have you here. >> good to be here. >> you are known for big impassioned speeches, but even for you that was a barn burner. i have to ask you to spell it out. what's the relationship you see between the supreme court seat being held vacant and the republican party cracking up over who is winning their primary? >> what's the problem with the two guys they've got at the top right now with donald trump and ted cruz? these are both people who basically deny the legitimacy of their opponents. they go on the attack. they demean millions of americans. that's what identifies them as extremists and why republicans, republicans in the senate are breaking apart over

in the united state senate, compromise is essential for passing any kind of legislation. rarely does the majority party have sufficient votes to pass something entirely by itself. always, majority leaders have to persuade members of the minority to come on board. that is one of the reasons why the u.s. senate wanted to commemorate senator dirksen by naming the second building after him. >> you can watch this or other american artifacts programs at any time by visiting our website, c-span.org/history. -- this weekend, the c-span's a city tour posted by time warner cable partners takes us to california to explore the city is -- the city's history and literary culture. atthis came from my editor the weekly at the time. i was not offended by the idea of asking mexican. i do not think anybody would care. in journalism, you want the stories people care about. one way or another. you do not care if they like you or hate you. an advice column about mexican check out it seems silly. they kept insisting. we needed to fill a space that week. i thought ok, i will go back. he said wil

that has never happened in the history of the united states senate. the senate republicans have said keep that scalia vacancy right where it is. a 4-4 supreme court for at least a year or longer. we haven't had a vacancy on the supreme court for over a year since the civil war tore this nation apart over 150 years ago. this letter that has been sent to the president and will be shared here makes it clear that the actions that are being called for by the republican majority are unprecedented, unprecedented. they never happened. the fact that they would refuse to have a hearing for a nominee to fill the scalia vacancy, a vote on that nominee, you only have to go back to 1988, not that long ago, when president ronald reagan, republican outgoing president in the last year of his presidency sent a name to the united states senate , then in control by a democratic majority to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. did the democrats in the senate in 1988 say to president reagan, oh, you're a lame duck, you're going to be gone in a year, we'll wait till after t

how could it possibly be acceptable in the united states senate? senate greatness, the national interests as a legislative guide, maturity and calmty will not be restored overnight or with a single decision. it has taken far too long for us to travel down this tkpwrubgtive -- disinstructive road of bitter partnership for restoration of greatness of the senate to occur quickly. but we should begin, we must begin and we can begin with our treatment of some of our most serious, even sacred duties. the confirmation of the next justice of the supreme court. we are not here to pacify a political base or satisfy one or more special constituencies orally our political parties. we are here to elevate our republic to make it a beacon for the world, to demonstrate how mature representatives of sovereign states govern a mature nation. this supreme court nomination is not a test of strength between the executive and legislative branches. it is a test of our strength as leaders with an honorable history and a heritage of wisdom and maturity. how we manage our co

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

and that is making sure the united states senate fulfills their constitutional obligation to advice and consent as it relates to considering any supreme court nomination that president obama sends up to that body. we know that justice antonin scalia has moved on after a long and distinguished career, though i disagree with almost every single judicial opinion that he has issued, he served this nation well. now that he's moved on, the supreme court, which is contained in article 3 of the united states constitution, has a vacancy. and it is the obligation of the united states senate to fill that vacancy by considering whatever nominee president arack obama sends forward. members of the united states senate take an oath of office to faithfully discharge their responsibilities. and when you look at article 2, section 2 of the united states constitution, which gives the president the power to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the supreme court, it's the senate that must consider that nominee. and since the early part of the 20th century, there have been eight different supreme court nomi

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

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

states and the constitution enough to do your job right here in the united states senate. >> massachusetts senator elizabeth warren doing her job picking a fight in washington that connects the republican parties freak-out over extremism in its on presidential race with the need to say no to extremism in governance like, for example, refusing to consider a supreme court nominee for vacancy for a solid year. senator warren joins us now for the interview. senator, i really appreciate you being here. nice to have you here. >> good to be here. >> you are known for big impassioned speeches, but even for you that was a barn burner. and i just have to ask you to spell it out for us here. what's the connection, what's the relationship you see between the supreme court seat being held vacant and the republican party basically cracking up over who is winning their primary? >> okay, so, look, what's the problem with the two guys they've got at the top right now with donald trump and with ted cruz? these are both people who basically deny the legitimacy of their opponents. they go on the attack. they

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

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

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

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

the president himself, when he was united states senator filibustered just as a leader. to that nominee. the presidentsimple justice reqt they abide. claim people should choose. it is simply not the precedent. more to the point. it is rich criticism coming from our friends across the aisle. where was the precedent for returning supreme court nominations in the scorched-earth political battle, as they did with qualified warnbortsuch as judge were now justice thomas? where was the precedent? there was none. there was no precedent. our democratic colleagues rewrote the rule book. where was the precedent last congress when democrats change the rules, something we call the nuclear option around shorthand. in order to do what? to pack the district of columbia court of appeals. something called the second most important court in the nation from which many supreme court nominations are nominated. there was no precedent when democrats rewrote the rulebook. our friends on the democratic side of the aisle have new rules and have time again tobias -- time and again devised schemes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

states senate. this is a separate point but i think you have to give republicans in some ways a lot of credit for being honest about what they're doing. instead of putting nominee through the charade of a hearing and trying to dig up personal attacks to vote them down, they're saying, no, this is not about merrick garland this is about the process. say, for example, miguel estrada was nominated by president bush, they went through this charade democrats did of personal attacks. instead of saying, we're not going to confirm president bush's nominees we don't want them to be on the supreme court some day. at least in this sense republicans are being honest. >> dickerson: about 20 seconds. the -- did you want to -- >> ancient history. seems to me as people we need to focus on where we go to now and when we have a bid from the president who is probably the best qualified person that a any party could have picked the party who rules the senate ought to take it seriously as a political calculation, give t

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

states senate. but he decided not to act, even in the face of mounting evidence that the country was facing a grave and gathering epidemic of heroin and opioid painkillers. overdose deaths from prescription opioid painkillers rose over 30% from 2007 to 2014. heroin overdose deaths more than quadrupled during that time. heroin seizures at the southwest border more than quadrupled as well. and all the while, the democratic leader never brought a bill to the floor to address the crisis. so given the dysfunction that had overtaken the senate not long ago, we should take a moment to appreciate the bipartisan process through which the senate just passed this cara bill. this republican chairman of the judiciary committee moved a democratic bill through the committee. it passed without opposition. then the republican leader promptly scheduled the bill for the floor's consideration. i don't recall that ever happening under the former democratic leadership. the senate had roll call votes on four amendments. a

then it was noted by senator graham that the president himself, when he was the united states senator, filibustered then justice samuel alito. so our democratic colleagues , and simplerulebook justice requires that they abide by it. that ourds claim position, the humble proposition that the people should choose, who makes that selection was unprecedented, but that is simple enough the case. no president has filled a vacancy with divided government as we have today in well over a century. that was the tradition. more to the point, that is a rich criticism coming to our friends across the aisle. the president for turning supreme court nominations into scorched-earth lyrical battles as they did with eminent a qualified nominees like judge bork, or now justice thomas, what was the precedent for that? there was none. where was the precedent for the serial filibusters of appellate judges in the bush administration that have already been commented upon. there was no precedent for that. our democratic colleagues rewrote the rulebook. where was the precedent last congress when democrats change

[applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the united states senator from new jersey, honorable cory booker. afternoon.: good this is truly a day that the lord has made, and the day that came to be because of some legends i can stand before right now. there are generations now in america who were not alive to bear witness to your courage. i say this to you with fivedence, as one of only african americans ever elected to the eye of state senate, i because you did not let anybody turn you around. [applause] sen. booker: this is truly one my life possibly just moments. to patron the to some of the actual ordinary americans, whose footsteps paved the way for me and my generation. partner withd to senator sessions. this award is one of the highest civilian honors our nation can bestow. it is clearly fitting, to give , to those who in the face of violence worked with peace, in the face of hatred showing incredible love, in the face appear, who showed incredible -- in the face of fear, who showed incredible courage, a love of their country ,nd fellow countrymen and women putting one foot in front o

states senate. this would be a star break from longstanding tradition and also inconsistent with the expectations of the u.s. constitution. we have a strong case to make here and we will keep making it. >> asking for an audience with a candidate. >> once the president has put forward a nominee that nominee will begin, as previous nominees have, making courtesy visits on capitol hill. i am confident that the courtesy visits will include a request to meet with republican senators and it will be up to republican senators to determine if they will accept that. i feel confident democrats will. i would just note in 1988, that was the last time we faced this situation we had republican presidents with a democratic majority in the united states house and that was the last time any president was asking the senate to confirm his supreme court nominated presidential election and senators grassley and mcconnell voted to confirm justice kennedy in 1988 in a presidential election year. they understand the stakes,

states senate. ok? all right. democraticck to the thehas the president said candidates will be less than fully supportive of judge garland's confirmation? bernie sanders even said he would look for some of you else. theearnest: no, looking at statements from both democrats running for president, both of them had said chief judge garland is eminently qualified, that he would do a good job on the supreme court and they have urged republicans to hold hearings and up and down votes. my point is they are very much on message. i'm not questioning the fact that if you have there ranked list of supreme court nominees that there may be somebody that thaneir mind ranks higher garland. they are not suggesting that chief judge garland is not -- does not deserve to be on the supreme court. they think he should. and that the senate should act. i raised this example prior to the nomination. the question before the senate is not is chief judge garland your number one pick? the president is the person who makes that

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

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

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