Latest Breaking News On - Keith blackwell - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
compromise bill included really the most money we've seen yet set aside for the wall. $25 million up front. what doomed this bill ultimately was it did include a pathway to citizenship for d.r.e.a.m.ers. what we saw in the final tally was republicans abandoning the bill that they had compromised upon in droves. this bill only got 121 votes from republicans despite the fact that it had been this product of intense negotiations over the last couplf weeks to try to find a goldilocks spot, something that would appeal to the different factions of the republican party. this bill couldn't do it. in fact, it did far worse than the more conservative bill that was voted on last week. all the different factions of the republican party have something to take away from this politically, except those who really wanted to see an immigration reform bill passed who will get nothing this year. >> garrett, it sounds like a continuation of this story. we have been talking about, really for years, of tha divide. you are describing it there. that divide within the republican party on this where there is some momentum, as you say, for this idea of a pathway to citizenship. and there is a very large chunk of the party that's absolutely resistant to that. and it seems -- here now in the spring of 2018, summer of 2018, it still seemsunresolved within the rtlet me ask you, garrett, week, president trump, of course, weighed in on twitter. he said republicans don't even bother bapassin immigration before this november elections. let's just get some republicans elected, we'll do it then. can you draw a straight line from the president saying that this week to this here? >> i think that this bill was probably in significant trouble before that happened. but it certainly didn't happen, especially with conservatives. you have a president here who has had a hard time staying consistent an what exactly he wants to see in a bill like this and a republican base that is so worried about the "a" word, amnesty. the idea that that is a four-letter word that they could be tarred with if they voted for anything that has a pathway to citizenship in it in particular. it is not that the president's tweet was the killer for this bill, but the president does have an opportunity, as a republican president who remains very popular with the republican base, to provide political cover for his members if he so chooses. but he has been so inconsistent in what he would support and when he chooses to support it that, rather than bank on the president continuing to stay in their camp as he in this morning's tweet, conservative republican members said, if we might lose the president on this, maybe we just don't take a tough vote on this. >> no incentive there to go out on a limb politically. let's check in at the white house. nbc's hans nichols is standing by. hans, maybe you can pick uphat part of the story for us. we've gotten mixed signals from this president about what exactly he wants, if he wants anything here, any sense what the white house's reaction to this is going to be? >> it is only going to increase their challenge, steve. just this morning when i was talking to an official here, they thought the real challenge would be in the senate. that's really been the president's position throughout, is that the senate is the heavy lift. when you look at this resounding defeat on the house side, that gives you a sense of just what their task is moving forward. of course, they are all the sort of challenges they have here at the white house, they also anticipate potentially a supreme court retirement from kennedy. i'll toss it back to you to see if you have anything more on that. >> we're waiting with everybody else to see what else comes in. but let me go back to garrett then on capitol hill on this. the idea of a path forward for republicans and for this administration and for democrats, for that matter, in the mid-term elections. because donald trump when he put that tweet out last week, garrett, he seemed to be saying he was content to take his chances on how this is going to resonate in the court of public opinion. republicans on capitol hill, they're trying to defend that majority. 23 seats, that's all they can afford to lose. they're not going to have, it sounds like, any kind of immigration bill to show for these last two years when they go to the voters. are republican leaders content to take their chances politically on that? >> well, republican leaders are very happy that they did not see a discharge petition be successful. remember, this was the parliamentary maneuver that republicans and democrats had teamed up to work on over the last couple of weeks. they would have forced votes on four different bills, including a droo.r.e.a.m. act. it might have passed. many republicans were word if it passed, even if it was broadly popular, two depress turnout in their base, republicans back home would say why bother to vote for a democrat congressmen when we're going to pass democrat-backed bills. so republicans wanted to put their members out here and let them vote on an immigration bill that they could potentially get behind. so in the pure cynical politics of this, if you are a conservative somewhere back home you can say you voted against amnesty and you voted for the wall. if you're a moderate in florida or california who worked very hard on this compromised bill, you can say you fought tooth and nail for a pathway to citizenship for d.r.e.a.m.ers and couldn't get it done. for all the people who were waiting for comprehensive immigration reform, the president's commentary on this, the idea the senate would have been a real challenge here is absolutely right. he's not wrong there. it is tough to see how this bill would have gotten democratic votes. frankly, it is tough to see how mitch mcconnell could have dedicated time in the senate for another fight on an immigration issue that he did not know if he could pass it. but getting anything through the house would have potentially been a jumpstart. you could have seen that kind of pressure build to do more with this. now that's just dead in the water. it is really, really tough to see how this issue gets taken up again in any capacity any time soon. >> garrett, while you share that news, folks at home watching this, if you haven't seen the alert, the banner is now up at the bottom of our screen. this is very big news. supreme court justice anthony kennedy announcing his retirement from the supreme court. we are scrambling to get -- i think we have hans nichols standing by. anthony kennedy has been on the court since 1988. remember, it was ronald reagan who appointed him. it sounds like we have pete williams now standing by. pete williams, this is a seismic announcement. >> so i'm having a little trouble hearing you, but i'll just tell you justice kennedy of the supreme court today just handed us this letter dated today from justice kennedy. i'll read it to you. it says, my dear mr. president, this letter is a respectful and formal notification of my decision, effective july 31st of this year, to end my regular active service as associate justice of the supreme court, while continuing to serve in senior status. so that means he is stepping down at the end of next month. now this is a bit of a surprise because supreme court justices normally say when they're going to announce their retirements, that their retirement will become effective upon the nomination and confirmation of a successor so that we know for sure that when the supreme court starts in the first monday in october, the next term, which just ended today, that there will be a full court of nine. so this sort of ups the ante on the president and the senate to get a confirmation in place if the court is to have all nine justices by the start of next term. >> there's one other paragraph here. i'll read it to you. it says, "for a member of the legal profession, it is the highest of honors to serve on this court. please permit me by this letter to express my profound gratitude for having had the privilege to seek in each case how best to know, interpret and defend the constitution and the laws that must always conform to its mandates and promises respectfully and sincerely. and then it is signed anthony m. kennedy. so he'll be leaving the court after basically 31 years. as he says in the letter, he'll turn 82 next month. he's the second-oldest justice of the supreme court. i'm going to ask our audio guy to give me another line so i can hear if anything else is happening here. you may have to help get that done. but tom goldstein is with me, our expert on the supreme court. i'm going to ask him to come in and join me here. tom, this is i guess not a huge surprise since justice kennedy was talking about this since last year. but how significant is a retirement by justice kennedy? >> we always knew it was a possibility because he served on the court for a long time. and it made sense for someone who was going to leave the court to consider doing it now before we get even closer to the 2020 election. it could not be possible to overstate the importance of this. you have it both in terms of how he has served as a justice in the past and been the swing vote on the court. but then immediately we start thinking about the near term and long-term future. this is really the chance for donald trump and the conservatives in the senate to cement a conservative supreme court for another 25 years because we tend to appoint new justices who are in their late 40s or early 50s now. but it is also a chance to move the court even further to the right because on a number of issues, justice kennedy had kind of limited the ability to undo more liberal jurisprudence from 20 or 30 years ago. >> talk about that while i give you a chance to clip that on. justice kennedy, ever since sandra day o'connor retired in 2006, justice kennedy has, in essence, been the swing vote, the deciding vote on the supreme court. when he voted with the conservatives, the court, for example, gutted the voting rights act, upheld the citizens united which allowed more corporate and union money in politics, gave new life to the second amendment and the right to own a gun. on the other hand, when justice kennedy voted with the liberals, they trimmed back the reach of the death penalty saying it didn't apply, for example, to juveniles. they gave civil rights to -- or rather legal rights to prisoners in guantanamo bay. and perhaps, most importantly, have been justice kennedy's decisions on gay rights, wouldn't you say. >> no question, that will go down in history as a monumental change in how our society operated, the recognition of rights for same-sex couples, for example, and just the movement away from discrimination against homosexuals has really been a big part of his jurisprudence about individuality. on one hand justice kennedy said i'm going to be against affirmative action policies, for example. i'm going to be very pro-religious liberty and very pro-in favor of free speech. but on the other hand, doing something that was extremely, extremely liberal politically, and that is favoring gay rights because is he a real individualist. if you get somebody on the court instead who's much more inclined towards a conservative jurisprudence, some of that might pivot back in the other direction. but i will say, people are going to start talking about abortion because justice kennedy probably was the key pivotal vote holding the court to kind of a restrained view of roe versus wade. now that's very much back on the table. you do have four justices without justice kennedy in the conservatives who are strongly inclined to limit -- >> however, justice thomas is the only one of conservatives who's voted on the row v. wade i issue. the other justices who have come on to the court since roe v. wade was decided. whether it would take a third republican nominee to replace one of the liberals on the court to get that outcome. i thinkky he i can hear you now again. we are discussing this hugely important news. i would say this sets in motion the biggest change on the u.s. supreme court in half a century. >> yeah, pete williams, thank you for that down there outside the supreme court. yes, as you're saying, and as we are going to be talking about here, this is absolutely huge news. to put this in some context, pete talking there about justice kennedy being sort of the swing justice on this court. pete williams, thank you for joining us down there in d.c. we appreciate you scrambling and getting there. just to, as we say, put this in a little bit of context here, the idea of justice kennedy as the swing justice here, how he got this seat in the first place about 30 years ago, originally the nominee from ronald reagan was a man named robert bork, one of the most conservative nominees we've seen for the court. that nomination was defeated by democrats. kennedy was the fall-back choice. he became the swing vote. now the political discussion here is going to be with a republican president, with a republican senate by the narrowest of margins, are you going to see this seat go more too the right with this new appointment? garrett haake standing by on capitol hill. the senate is 51-49 right now. that's the republican majority. a republican president trump and you have a 51-49 majority. you have democrats who are certainly going to be very concerned about there pick. however, the other "x" factor in this is, last year democrats confronted with the supreme court nomination, neil gorsuch, did away with essentially the filibuster, then republicans did away with the filibuster. so that potential tool for democrats if they don't like whatever pick emerges here, gone. >> that tool is gone. this could not come at a more fascinating moment in time for the united states senate. it is not really 51-49. it's 50-49. john mccain is not here. he's back in arizona and we have no idea when he's coming back. so it is the narrowest possible majority for the republican-controlled senate. likewise, in the judiciary committee where this will be heard, one-vote margin for republicans and democrats separating the two in the judiciary committee. you also have a democratic base right now that's fired up about the supreme court. democrats, i don't have to tell you, steve, don't typically pay as much attention to the court as a voting issue as republicans. but in the last week they've seen three major decisions go against democratic priorities. so the democratic base is very awake and very alive to the power and the authority of the supreme court in a time that mitch mcconnell will now be once again shepherding a republican-nominated justice through confirmation hearings. gorsuch got three democratic votes when he was up here. it's tough to see in this environment in a mid-term year whether another supreme court nominee could do the same. this is going to be a battle. summer is canceled at the united states senate. >> danny cevallos, bring you in here in new york. do we have a sense, the names, the types of folks, the potential candidacy who the trump administration would look to for this? because it seems like the nature of these appointments and these nominations to the supreme court, there is this universal awareness, if you make a pick, it could last for 30 or 40 years. age is in the mix. ideology is in the mix. there's paper trails that are in the mix here. with that in mind do we have a sense where the trump administration might already be looking? >> we do. there have already been informal and formal lists released. you are absolutely right, the modern approach by presidents is to pick someone as young as possible, someone who is in a prestigious court or prestigious position but they haven't done anything too controversial. the d.c. circuit court of appeals is a fantastic place to look because of the nature of a lot of cases that they hear. not surprisingly, some of the names on the top of many lists are young judges. bred cavanaugh, a judge in the d.c. court of appeals. a former professor at my alma merit, notre dame, amy barrett, was just nominated to the 7th circuit. she's already gone through the senate process very recently and passed it. she might be a consideration, too. but that's what they will be looking for. people that fit this mold. younger judges who can be on the court for decades and affect the outcome. remember, with the loss of kennedy, kennedy was the coin flip in many of these cases. now you're surely going to have someone who's going to lean more conservative and it will change the equilibrium of the court. >> we've got harry lippman, a former u.s. attorney, he once clerked for justice kennedy. the potential to change here, to move to the right the balance of the court with this retirement, with donald trump making the selection with the republican senate poised potentially, likely to confirm it. this does enter at some point in to the consideration of any retiring justice. i mean i remember thurgood marshall wanted to hang on until there was a democratic president and he wasn't able to. do you think anthony kennedy is comfortable with he leaves and this court moves to the right? >> i remember marshall left at exactly this time, right after the term had ended. so i had taken kennedy's opinion in the travel ban case to indicate his discomfort with some of what was hamg. but happening. obviously he is is a life-long republican. he's obviously made the judgment that he is comfortable doing it. i've seen and spoken to him recently. i don't think there are any major health issues. i can only surmise that, yes, perhaps he was -- [ inaudible ] with the pi >> we're going to work on your phone signal there. getting a little tough to hear you. wile we work on that, i'm going to pick it up here again with danny cevallos. talk a little bit about the political backdrop of this. democrats are of course politically still up in arms over the fact of donald trump having that first appointment last year to the court, neil gorsuch. that was the scalia's passing during the 2016 campaign, the decision by mitch mcconnell and the republicans in the senate that we're not going to do conif i recallation for merit garland, no confirmation hearings for merit g garland. looking at the decision this week by the corps thurt that des didn't like, democrats already feel they are at a disadvantage on this court. >> absolutely. because in the last year it was expected -- people who watch the court like me, a lot of people weren't even aware that the senate or congress could even pull this off, delay the vote. so it was a surprise that wh whenmakwhen merrick garland never had the opportunity. now given that we have a congress that's likely to confirm just about anybody that is nominated it, carefully, that is, that we can be certain that the balance of the court is going to change. keep in mind that justice kennedy was appointed by a republican. so the fact that he was considered the swing vote is interesting because it shows that he wasn't in lockstep with everything the republican party wanted. the thing that the president is probably the most fearful of, ironically, now is loyalty. there's a verb that's thrown around disparagingly. you don't want to get suitored. that was the pejorative term given to a judge that you nominate and then goes in a direction -- >> based on the appointment of david souter. so that is something that republicans -- that's why they do so much research on these judges. they pore offer their transcripts and writings and every law review note they've ever written to get an idea of where he or she will ultimately go. >> it was david souter. recommendation of john sununu. said you could trust this guy. conservatives still curse that selection. the process has changed a little bit, but with the trump white house, we've seen sort of convention thrown to the wind a little bit sometimes. i wonder, you getting any indications how they are approaching this one at all? >> in some ways, they've been very methodical in their supreme court justice picks. we've just heard from the president of the united states. he's meeting inside with the prime minister of portugal. he says they have a list of 25 highly intelligent, highly qualified judicial appointments potentially and that they will be drawing from that list. it gives you an indication this white house was preparing for this vacancy and that they're already on their way. president trump is sayi ining t have have a nominee that they will send to the senate shortly. shortly was one of the words the president used. so it gives you a sense that they have a real sense of urgency. i think when we look forward and we anticipate the rest of the summer, this is going to be an intense political environment. both bases are going to be incredibly animated and charged up on this. you can't imagine much more energy on the left-hand side of the ledger. conservatives, as well, always come out and they really animate their side. you saw that when the president was at that rally just a couple of days ago in south carolina. one of his biggest applause lines was talking about how he is moving the judicial bench to the right. this is a president who's clearly seized opportunities to reshape whatever institution it is in his image. i suspect that we can expect a very conservative nominee from this president. and remember, all the talk about kennedy coming in, replacing after the mishap that happened with who was he replacing, you don't need 60 votes anymore. you are down to 50. because after that judge bork issue in the '80s, you had a lot of back-and-forth on the senate. ultimately in the last couple of years, the filibuster no longer applies to the united states supreme court justices. it is a simple majority. that makes mitch mcconnell's job this summer a lot easier. >> we'll bring in jonathan turley now on the phone. law professor at george washington university. jonathan, you heard there the name robert bork was just mentioned. anthony kennedy is on the court, has been on the court, for the last 30 years because robert bork could not get confirmed. ronald reagan's very conservative nominee was rejected by a democratic senate in 1987. kennedy, the fall-back choice. the fear of democrats all across the country right now certainly is that now with a republican senate by the slimmest of margins, but a republican senate, nonetheless, and donald trump as president, that essentially robert bork -- a robert bork-like figure could everge and go on the court here. is that a real possibility? >> it is a real possibility. the change in the filibuster rule made this an entirely different process from the one we've seen in the past. the republicans have every incentive to move this as quickly as they can. the fact is those mid-term elections are looming over the senate. they don't know quite what they're going to have after the next election, and they don't want to be put into the position that the obama administration was in with a merrick garland nomination. now that means it is likely to favor those judges on the list of 25, because they have had previous fbi investigations or vetting. that's what often takes the longest time. so it is very likely they will take off that list so that -- [ lost audio ] >> sounds like we've lost -- we were having trouble with the phone lines here today. we'll work on that. hopefully we can get jonathan turley back. i believe we have mike murphy now, republican strategist, joining us. he was an advisor to george w. bush. mitt romney. john mccain, among others. mike, curious about the politics on this. let me put the person tags i think we wi put the interpretation you hear. in this mid-term election year there's been an enthusiasm gap, democrats mobilized to the hilt. election day, circled, can't wait to get out the vote. from the republican side, more of a question mark there. but if you throw into the middle of this a robert bork-like supreme court fight into the middle of the summer, maybe into the fall, there it is, that's the thing that could motivate republican voters equal to where democrats are. do you think there is anything to that? >> i think there is something to it. it is already a red-hot election. i think president trump has done a pretty good job of getting more casual democratic voters who tend to only vote in presidential years to do what they normally don't do, which is ebb gau engage in an off year. we've seen that in special elections. my guess is will heat up everybody. republicans and conservatives will get extra excited. democrats and liberals will get extra excited. i think the abortion shoe -- because this was the swing vote so roe v. wade politics help up. that will help republicans in some senate states, hurting them in others. this ramps the whole intensity of the election up. i'm not because of the new voting numbers, as your guest said, are different than they were in the bork era, this could go quicker, which may or may not be what each party wants. the wild card of president trump. he operates more an personality an ideology. who knows who he might nominate? there is a smart way to go politically as you pick somebody who's already been vetted. but donald trump is always the wild card when making these decisions. that's a hard one to know what's going to happen but the stakes are much higher now. that will add heat to the election in every way. >> pete williams, just to continue on a point mike murphy was raising, basically with control of the senate, theoretically republicans could have the ability to move very quickly on this, control of the senate, no filibuster anymore, they could get this through more quickly even with a controversial pick. though again, 51 republican senators, as garrett mentioned earlier, john mccain has been sidelined for a while now. is there any risk here -- do we not have pete williams? am i asking the question to -- we don't have pete williams. i'm going to rephrase this question to danny cevallos who's right here with me in the studio. danny, you may know where i was starting to go with that, but it is basically this. if republicans don't have much of a margin for error in the senate on this, 51 votes with mccain, 50 if he remains sidelined, if it is that, they have margin of error of one on this. is there a risk of this administration overreaching, if roe versus wade is an issue, a republican like, i don't know, susan collins, lisa murkowski, is there a republican out there, you think about john mccain with that thumbs down moment over health care. >> there is a huge risk for exactly the reasons you stated. that's why this is a different process than it was with gorsuch. you could make the argument that gorsuch was a return to the status quo. he was similar enough to scalia. was democrats were not happy about the merrick garland situation, at least once scalia passed the idea was that he was essentially being replaced. you will not be restoring the court to a status quo with this next pick at all. that's why it will be a more controversial choice. >> mike murphy, before we let you go, i want to get you in on that possibility, too. you know this republican party well. you know the divide in this republican party, especially with sort of the establishment folks, for lack of a better term, in washington. could you see some resistance there from a susan collins, from a mccain, from somebody who a trump pick here? >> well, think republicans generally -- i think this would reflect most of the senate members -- look for a conservative judge with a pragmatic streak. video v wa roe v. wade a good case study from pragmatic legal interpretation. i would be surprised if they buck, unless the president nominates somebody who is outside what they think the mainstream conservative thought is on the court. in a rigsal world, i would bet on one of the judges who were recently already confirmed by the senate. that's the smart political way to go. but with donald trump, it is always a wild card. if you really -- judge judy pops up or something, people could buck. we could be into a whole new world. it is just hard to predict with him. but the standard play would be to get somebody who is more center right and do it quick and get it done. >> mike murphy, thanks for joining us. >> this is not going to be a typical trump decision by fiat. history has shown that he really defers to advice when it comes to appointing federal judges. particularly it looks like he's taking advice from places like the federalist society. at least in this realm he doesn't seem to be willy-nilly making choices. this is something he chooses to delegate. while he ultimately makes the choice, he likes others informing him on this one. >> i think we have pete williams back with us. pete, i'll start asking the question. i hope you can hear me. danny cevallos was just saying, the issue of court appointments, supreme court appointments, a bit of an exception to our understanding of this administration in terms of how orderly it is, how much they hue to a traditional process. a little bit more than a decade ago we did see a republican revolt against a republican supreme court nominee, harriet miers, with george w. bush. when you look at the dish namff names bandied about for this opening, are there any names that could prompt some sort of backlash from republicans? >> any name is going to prompt some backlash, certainly from liberals and democrats. none of the names that i -- that come immediately to mind would be viewed by republicans as so far out of the conservative mainstream that they couldn't support them. in fact, that's one of the things fat federalist society and other groups advising the president have had in mind from, is from that list, you may recall, that neil gorsuch was chosen. the president of the federalist society has already said just a few minutes ago that any nominee that is chosen by the president he thinks would be someone like neil gorsuch. tom goldstein is here with me, our supreme court expert. you say you think the opposition is not going to waste any time in mobilizing? >> no. i think groups on both sides of the political divide just geared up. they all had their press releases ready. they are ready to start making phone calls. they have the mid-term elections in mind. i think this is -- the administration has to be ecstatic about this. they have avowedly kind of delegated this question to conservative judicial organizations. you'll see republicans really rally around the president. probably a good distraction for him on other issues probably. i think that that list is gold to conservatives. almost anybody on it is really going to check every box and going to create a lot of excitement on the right and a lot of fear on the left about things like abortion, about real expansion of the relationship between church and state, gun rights, things that really, really motivate people and really motivate voters are all on the table now. >> one other thing here about why justice kennedy chose to retire now. you may recall we went through this about a year ago when justice kennedy told friends he was thinking about retiring, and he basically thought 30 years was a pretty good amount of service in public service and on the court, and he wanted to spend more time with his grandchildren and so forth. he says in his letter that he looks forward to staying in close touch with the court, but clearly it is something that he wants to do, to spend more time -- he says in a statement mere, that while his family was willing for him to continue to serve, his decision to step aside was based on his deep desire to spend more time with them. i think the other thing is, we talk a lot about justice kennedy being a moderate. justice kennedy is a conservative. and we forget about that. he is a conservative who was comfortable with this president. he has had a good relationship with some members of the trump family. shortly after the president came into office, some of the trump family came here to see the court and spend some time with him. so he was ready to go, and comfortable to go now. >> pete williams, down there outside the supreme court, i am sure we'll be checking back to you. bringing now into the coverage, chris matthews, our own msnbc's chris matthews. chris, we had a supreme court fight last year over neil gorsuch and in the 2016 campaign as well over merrick garland. the filibuster's gone now, though politically this seems like it is going to be a more intense fight we are in store for. >> i don't think the democrats should allow even meetings to occur with trump's nominee to fill this vacancy by justice kennedy. i think they have to fight eye for an eye for what happened in '16 where the republicans, led by mitch mcconnell, refused to even consider or even meet with merrick garland. i think if the democratic leadership under schumer allows this to go forward, they're going to have a huge problem with the democratic base. we saw joe crowley get beaten up in new york, up in queens yesterday. you can tell that this leadership will be to the tott edge if they allow this to proceed. there is no way politically the democratic base will stand for any kind of hearings or vote on a trump nominee for the supreme court before the election. we've got an election in 4 1/2 months. there's no reason to consider a replacement on the supreme court in that time. no reason given the history of what happened. let's watch mcconnell now -- i'm telling you, they have no right to bring this up after what they did in '16. >> i guess the practical question is, if that's the approach democrats want to take, how do they do it? they tried to filibuster the garland -- excuse me, they tried to filibuster the gorsuch nomination. republicans just did away with the filibuster. republicans have 51 votes right now, 50 if mccain is sidelined. still enough with pence sitting there. if republicans stay together, is there anything democrats can do? >> there's a lot of dilatory tactics they can use on every other bill before the congress between now and november. if they don't use everything they've got, if they don't play hardball, i think they're through. i know the democratic base. they are very angry about this leadership. they feel it has not fought hard enough against trump and that they allow trump to fill the supreme court with another conservative who will not share justice anthony kennedy's views on social issues like marriage equality. i mean judge kennedy deserves a lot of credit from the gay community. i think all americans for marriage equality and for the lawrence case before that. his belief in the liberty clause and equality and based upon the original constitution. he is a great justice when it comes to these social gender issues. but if he gets replaced by a hardline social conservative, it is -- the democratic leadership will have hell to pay. they cannot let this happen. they have to play hardball. they've got to do exactly to the other side what mitch mcconnell did to them, play hardball and win. they must prevent the republican-controlled 1234 republican-controlled senate to pick another justice on this court. look at the decision starting with bush/gore. the heller case where everybody in the country can have the biggest country they can buy. the case on citizens united where the people with the most money win all the elections. then that god-awful decision yesterday based on the anti-muslim bill. they voted right down the line 5-4 in every case. the democrats have got to fight for that fifth seat with everything they've got. if they allow this to proceed, they're going to look stupid, they're going to look weak and they're going to be overthrown. i tell you, the democratic base is wired now for a revolt. this will be the trigger for it. he shouldn't have a meeting with any of his nominees. they shouldn't have any hearings, they shouldn't show up for any hearings. they should fight this tooth an that. >>. [ inaudible question ] >> most likely. john bolton is over in russia right now. he's met with president putin. he haven't gotten the full report yet but two look like we will be meeting some time in the not-too-distant future. [ inaudible question ] >> we'll see. we believe families should be together, also. there's not a lot to fight about. we believe in very strong borders. no crime. and the democrats believe in open borders and plenty of crime because that's what you get with the open borders. i would like to introduce, however, the president of portugal. i'm sorry to bother you, but in our country the selection of a justice of the united states supreme court is considered -- i think we can all say -- one of the most important events. one of the most important things for our country. i mean you see the decisions that just came down, how big they are, how vital they are. they can swing different ways depending on who there might be on the court. so it's always been considered a tremendously important thing. some people think outside of obviously war and peace, it is the most important thing that you could have. but another very important thing is introducing the president, the highly respected, i must say, president of portugal. thank you. >> thanks. thank you. well, as a constitutional law professor, i know how it works to pick a justice on your supreme court retires. because it is a key institution. so i just heard the news and i know how important it is for you and any united states president. anyway, i would like to tell you that we have a very long lasting friendship and partnership that start started when we recognize you. we were the first neutral country to rec news united states of america independence. although we had, as our oldest ally, england. and i don't know if you know it, but your founding fathers celebrated independence with our wine, with midera wine. it is a long, long story about this one, about friendship, about partnership. based on common value, democracy, freedom and rule of law and human rights. but also of a very strong community. our citizens are both american and portuguese. there are around 1,500,000 portuguese americans living here. so they are important. it is not a military, political or economic alliance. it is more than that. it is something very human. because it's been that 1,400,000 people that they leave their love for two countries at the same time. as you spoke of soccer, let me then ask you something -- well, make you a suggestion. >> go ahead. >> if you are going to meet mr. putin -- i was with him last week. >> good. >> yes. and he asked me to greet you. of course, he was expecting it. but don't forget, portugal has the best blood in the world that's called cristiano ronaldo. i'm sure your son knows it. don't forget, if you ever go russia during the championship, don't forget portugal still there and wanting to win. >> they're doing very well. >> doing very, very, very well. >> so tell me, how good a player is he? are you impressed? >> i'm very much impressed. he is the best player of the world, ronaldo. so in a sense -- well, i think has been a success. i would agree with you, the championship. no doubt about it. for the world. for the world. >> so will christihe ever run f president against you? he wouldn't win. >> mr. president, you know something? i must tell you, fortunately not just united states. >> that's right. go ahead. >> mr. president, when did you learn that justice kennedy was retireing? >> about a half-hour ago. >> were you surprised? >> he came to the white house. we had a wonderful discussion just prior to meeting the president. really had a very deep discussion. i got his ideas on things, including i asked him if he had certain people that he had great respect for that potentially could take his seat, which is a very hard seat to fill. so we talked about different things. and he was here for about a half-an-hour. i don't think you folks saw him come in and out. did you? i'm shocked. they've done a great job. that's a shocker. that's a shocker. he just left a little while ago, just prior to meeting the president. >> can you tell us who he recommended? >> no, i won't do that. but he -- there are certain names that are just outstanding. names that you already know, to be honest with you. there are names that you know that are outstanding, highly respected. names that you would know, mr. president. and we'll be looking at them. we'll be looking at some others. but they will come from the list of 25 people. >> mr. president, it is an election year. would you have consideration to hold the spot open until the make-up of congress has been determined come november. >> i haven't really thought about that. i think you want to go as quickly as possible. it is a process. but haven't really thought about that. we had a big day yesterday. very big. we had a great decision today in terms of what was just released by the supreme court yesterday obviously with the travel ban. was extremely big. we had some tremendous elections. south carolina from my own standpoint, south carolina, the governor. mcmaster. it was a big win. as you know, i was very much involved in new york with the congressman, donovan. so we're very happy. this was a good few days and now i get to cap it off by meeting with the president of portugal and portugal's been actually very important to our nation. you are right, we have about a mall and half people from portugal here so that's very important. [ inaudible question ] >> no. i want them to do what they want. the problem we have -- and i told them this morning -- hey, pass it if you can. but i also want them to do what they want. we have a big immigration bill, like everybody does, like you an everybody talks about immigration now more than ever before. i told them a few hours ago, i said, look, pass something or come back with something that would be a derivation. it's not going to pass in the senate. you're not going to give the democrats to vote for anything. if we gave them 100% of what they wanted, then doubled it, they still wouldn't pass it because they think it is a good election point. i think it is good for us because i think strong borders -- i don't even know how you feel about that, but i think strong borders and no crime is -- that's us. i think that's going to be a great election point for us. i told them two hours ago, i said, do what you want and ultimately we'll come to something and perhaps it will be after the election, maybe it will be before. but as of this moment, democrats are not going to vote for anything because they really are resisting or obstructing. okay? thank you very much. [ inaudible question ] >> i think we'll be talking about syria. i talking about ukraine. i think we will be talking about many other subjects, and we'll see what happens. you never know about meeting what happens, right? but i think a lot of good things can come with meetings with people. we had great meetings with president xi of china. we have -- every place i have been we have had great meetings. so maybe something positive will come out of it. >> what was the progressive challenger that beat joe crowley that young woman from new york. >> that was a shocker. for crowley to lose that election, that was a shocker. i was surprised. everybody was surprised. we have somebody that has been in there many years, mr. president, and i think he probably took it for granted. i can't say that i am disappointed because i have never a big fan. but he lost his election. probably shouldn't have lost his election. maybe you get a little complacent. you know, that does happen. you get complacent. and he lost. that's a big loss. i tell you what, that's an amazing -- that was a shocking loss. but it is what it is. thank you all very much. [ overlapping speakers ] >> they are doing great. by the way, the steel industry is absolutely doing great. the tariffs have been incredible. and the steel industry doing great. and our country is doing graph. you are seeing the results. the numbers coming out from the companies are far beyond what anybody ever thought possible. we are doing really good but we have to have fair trade deals and we are working on really fair trade deals. we are working with your representatives on fair trade deals. >> that's good news. good news. >> yes, yes. it's going to be very good. going to be -- >> [ overlapping speakers ] >> probably after -- >> right after? >> probably after. thank you everybody. thank you very much. >> [ inaudible ]. >> it will be announced first. yes. >> okay, this is footage we are just receiving, a very slight delay there. president trump in the oval office, has the president of portugal with him. an informal session with reporters. the news breaking just before he began speaking there, supreme court justice anthony kennedy is stepping down, retiring from the court. opens up a seat that the president can now make a nomination for, and the republican senate then could consider. the president was asked there, you might have heard by our halle jackson if there would be any consideration with the fact we are very close to a midterm election, would that dissuade him from making a nomination and waiting. he said he hadn't thought it about he thought it would be better to move quickly. back with our panel. kristen welker, again, the president answering halle jackson there saying hey i hadn't thought about the timing. my sense is this is a white house like the entire political world that has been waiting on this word from anthony kennedy for a long time and probably has a clear idea of what he would like to do here. >> i would think so, steve. and you heard him talk about the fact that he does have a list of about 25 people, that likely a reference to the list he put out during the campaign. 25 people. we have it right here. a number of judges across the country. amy coney barrett of indiana, the u.s. kofrtd appeals from the seventh circuit. keith blackwell of georgia, supreme court of georgia. raymond deathe ledge, from the 6th circuit. this is a group of 25 names, men and women. this list, though, was put together by the heritage foundation as well as the federalist society, two conservative groups. it is underscores the fact that the president not surprisingly is going to pick someone who is conservative, shares his values on a range of issues. of course this could have a number of implications for fierce fights that this country is engaged in, everybody from abortion rights to religious little bit erttle to a range of other national security issues. this is significant. it is a chance for president trump to put a big stamp on the supreme court, what could shape up to be, steve, one of the most significant pieces of his legacy. this will be two supreme court justices he will get to pick. >> jon meacham we have been talking this hour about the political fight, a massive political fight that may be shaping up in the backdrop, the big picture backdrop for this is kennedy is on the court because bjork couldn't get on 30 years ago. democrats wouldn't confirm him. we had a big fight back then. now the fight to replace him could be even bigger. the way the supreme court nominations play out, the way the court is viewed in our politics, it has changed, broken down, this system over a generation has been altered significantly. >> it has been. justice kennedy's term was born out of controversy. the borsch nomination failed not least because ten kennedy took to the floor on the day of its announcement and gave a powerful hyper partisan speech about it. if you ask republicans when did the partisan wars of the current era begin they point to what kennedy did to bjork. it vaeted a verb. to be bjorked was to be taken on etiological grounds. kennedy served twice as long as earl warren did. we have one justice from bush 41. two from clinton, the rest from bush 43 and obama. and justice kennedy, like justice o'connor before him was a important swing vote, whether the decision was bush v gore. it reminds us -- as if we needed another thing to remember that elections matter enormously. >> chris matthews, listening to the president there talk about this. again, this will be his second pick to the supreme court potentially in two years of office. he will have had two justices nominated and confirms for this. what is your reaction? >> i don't think we are looking at the fresher history of this 5-4 court. they were the ones who through threw the election, took it out of the hands of the supreme court down in florida and gave it to george w. bush. and then of course they gave the gun people what they wanted in the howard decision. they gave the money people the decision they wanted in the citizens united then of course just yesterday they gave the anti-immigrant what they wanted. this supreme court, this 5-4 court has been pro-republican, pro-gun, pro-money and against immigration -- anti-immigrant, full. i think the democrats as i said a few moments ago have to fight this tooth and nail. they have to use every process, opportunity they have to stop this until next year when we have a new senate. we don't know whether the senate will be republican or democratic nominated. but to give this to the republicans when they control the senate 51 or 50-49 with john mccain perhaps not voting again, to give them this last chance to pack the court 5-4 again hard conservative, i again say this, the base will attack the leadership for this if they allow it to happen. they should. because this is time for vengeance for what happened two years ago and if they don't reap the vengeance right now with four and a half months to go to the election they will not look strong to their base and you will see more attack and you will see more joe crowley's go down. >> kristen welker let me bring you in on that point. chris matthews is calling on democrats to fight this and not let this happen. i don't see a tool the democrats -- if that is their inclination hshs would have. last year they tried to filibuster the nomination of neil gorsuch and the republicans said no more filibuster we just need a simple majority f. republicans say they want to confirm trump's choice here, maybe i'm wrong, is there a tool democrats could have? >> not that i'm aware of. i think you have hit the significant point here, which is that they passed neil gorsuch through a jimpl majority. so the expectation is that they will apply the exact same calculus if and when the president makes a new pick for the rt sko. the republicans are inclined to fight just as hard on this point. leader mcconnell tweeted out photos of him with neil gorsuch after he had been approved, after his nomination had been approved essentially saying to democrats, look, i did this. i was the one who ultimately paved the way for this confirmation to happen. of course, democrats still fuming after i merrick garland's nomination was blocked. so they did everything they could within their power to stop it. they just didn't have the votes to do that. i don't know why it would be different this time around. >> if you want to know why donald trump won the establishment republican vote in key states, it's because of tax cuts and days like this. >> supreme court nominations. it is -- any republican president -- you could hear that in to 16 the activist would say you may not like trump but he would have the power to do that. here it is potentially now the second supreme court nomination for donald trump. potentially the second confirmation of a justice for him if this plays out over the next few months. big breaking news. we will not be stepping away from this. i'm stepping in. in for katy tur i'm steve kornacki. ali very well she picks things up. >> good afternoon. big news from the united states supreme court, justice anthony kenne kennedy, known as the crucial swing vote retires on july 31st. when attorneys argue their cases in front of the supreme court they are told they tailor their argument specifically toward kennedy. that judges right their rulings write with the intention of swaying kennedy. president trump has the opportunity to nominate another supreme court, this is a game changer. president trump welcomed the news. >> we will begin our search for a new justice of the united states supreme court. that will begin immediately. and hopefully we are going to pick somebody who will be as outstanding. so i
WashingtonUnited-statesSyriaWhitehouseDistrict-of-columbiaChinaSouth-carolinaIndianaNew-yorkGeorgiaPortugalArizonaNew 'elixir of life' pills to fight ageing after breakthrough discovery
innovationtoronto.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from innovationtoronto.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Keith-blackwellDiabetes-centreHarvard-medical-school