Case for why he is the best equipped candidate to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. This morning, donald trump had this to say about protest. He said the protesters in california were thugs and criminals. Many are professionals. They should be dont with question they should be dealt with by law enforcement. He goes ahead of the states republican primary on tuesday. He will be speaking to supporters at the south end. That will be live at 7 00 p. M. Eastern time on cspan two. Meanwhile, ted cruz is also in indiana for a rally at indianapolis. It will be live at 7 30 p. M. Eastern time. This editorial in the Indianapolis Star. A President Trump quote would be a danger to the United States in the world. Ted cruz is ill suited to serve. Joining us now is matthew talley, he is the call missed for the Indianapolis Star. Does the newspaper really feel about these two . Isthew think which you see a newspaper editorial decision that was very disappointed with john kasich for pulling out of indiana. My guess is that we would cut a different decision if he had decided to campaign in the state next to his. It is hard to endorse someone who throws in the towel before the voters get a chance. Yet, the polls show donald trump maintaining a slim lead ahead of the primary. Matthew we have not had a poll in several days. The writing on the wall seems to indicate that he will do well next week. You know, he has had a steady week. Lot of news. Made a he has been a very germanic candidate. But, some of his decisions like the alliance of kasich and the announcement about Carly Fiorina and a couple other flubs here thethere trump has been more steady candidate in this weeks race. So, it will be interesting to see what happens. Like i said come with have not had a poll in several days. I do not thinkke theyre a too many undecided voters, even a week ago. Wrote anys ago, you essay that begin with this headline. Even at a ted cruz event, it is all about donald trump. Matthew yes, i was in a ted cruz event on the sell side of indianapolis. It struck me that these two diners just are talking about donald trump. One was a trump supporter come along was a crew supporter. After ted cruz gave a 10 minute kind of informal speech to the press. All he talked about was donald trump. So, even at his rally, the focus is on the front runner. Owning a back to the editorial. Every few years, people think is this the best we can choose . Write in the Indianapolis Star that this is a disappointing field of candidates now competing the democratic and republican primaries. Is this any different than what we have seen over the last 20 years . Matthew i think this is a particularly distressing field for a lot of us. Particularly, the republican side. Especially come when you think about john kasich. You know, i think our belief that donald trump is in no way suited for the presidency, and ted cruz has do nothing to show that he is up for the job or able to bring the country together. You know, you go back eight years. That is the last time than enamel indianapolis matter. You had Hillary Clinton and barack obama. There were strong feelings of both sides. Which you do not have was the idea that we could start over with two new candidates. If anything, people had a tough time between choosing between the two because they like them both. Based on your column today, which is Available Online at indy star. Com. Is donald trump a bully . Matthew absolutely. Absolutely. You know, i have used that word several times. That column was written after one of the most highly respected pediatric professors indoctrinate estate reached out to me and said you know, you need to make this point that we are not just saying it for the point of rhetoric. This is all most like a clinical diagnosis. When you look at how he treats people. Having talks about women. How it talks about protesters. When he talks to people who have irritated him. This is a textbook case of a bully behavior. Her point was that we has spent 20 years trying to teach kids that this is inappropriate that you cannot do this. Here we are having yet, he keeps winning. He keeps winning. I will to you. You go to his rallies, and what i have been struck by is it is not a racially diverse crowd, mixed crowd. Ery men, women, people from upscale suburbs, rural areas, from rough part or struggling parts of indianapolis. Diverseeen a more crowds and i think i would have expected, based on everything i read leading up to this. He has shown he can connect with people, and he has deftly connected with people here in indiana. There are read leading up to diehard supporters. Even the folks who dont agree with what he says, who wish he would not say certain things about certain groups of people even though i dont agree with what he says, he think he is the one that will bring the change that we need. Once people believe that, i dont think there is a way back. The you have your polls on indiana a lecture. What will happen on tuesday and what role will indiana play in the road to the ultimate gop nominee . Guest i should preface it by saying that im usually wrong, but it seems that it will be a donald trump night on tuesday. I will be very surprised if he doesnt carry the state. He may not win all of the delegates. Has a more evangelical message, but it appears that donald trump will win solidly. On the democratic side, it is hard to predict because Hillary Clinton has had a slight lead in the polls, but the clintons have in the state. They showed that it is wrapped up on their side and they are focusing on the general. As far as the convention, this is interesting. This is a very projohn kasich delegate list. Host thank you for being with us. We appreciate it. Guest my pleasure. We probably give our vote to the next president of the United States. Next, a discussion about the senates role in judicial nominations. Ranking member Patrick Leahy of vermont and orrin hatch of utah spoke to stay at the Edward M Kennedy institute. Also, there was a discussion about the history of blocking judicial nominations and the senates power to advise and consent. This is just under one hour. Good morning. On behalf of the edward m. Kennedy institute for the United States senate, i welcome all of you to the kennedy caucus room. For this timely and important discussion of the senates role in connection with the president s lifetime appointment of individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States. The mission of the Kennedy Institute is to educate the public about the Important Role of the senate in our government. To encourage participatory democracy, to invigorate civil discourse, and to inspire the next generation of citizens and leaders to engage in the civil life, civic life of their communities and of our country. To that end, in addition to our hands on senate experience in boston, we host a series of Public Programs that highlight the role of the senate, and the focus on the issues of the day. I think you will agree that the senate advise and consent role in confirming nominees to the Supreme Court certainly qualifies as and the board issue of thent day. We know, however, that the public doesnt fully understand this and its important advise and consent role. Indeed, in polling just completed by the Kennedy Institute, we found that only 36 of americans understand the role that the senate place in confirming Supreme Court nominees. Thats really something, and we had our work cut out for us. But i feel that after todays discussion we will have a much clearer understanding, all americans will, about the Important Role. So it is my great pleasure to introduce our speakers and our panelists here today. We have our dear, my dear very my very different, first president pro tem of the senate, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, orrin hatch, republican from utah. The Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary committee, former president pro tem of the senate, Patrick Leahy, democrat from vermont. They will be both be making remarks in a few minutes. We are also be pleased to be joined by marty gold, partner with Capital Counsel llc and jeff blattner, president of legal policy solutions. Marty worked in many senior positions in the senate culminating in this role as counsel to Senate Majority leader howard baker. Jeff served on the senate, senator kennedys Senate Judiciary committee step for many years and he became his chief counsel in 1992. During this time with senator kennedy, jeff was the lead staffer on sixth Supreme Court nominations. If anyone understands the role the senate plays in the Supreme Court justice nomination process, it is all of the gentlemen we will be hearing from here today. The moderate of our panel today as chris geiger of buzzfeed come at without further ado i will turn the program over to chris. Thank you all for being here. We are all looking forward to learning a lot today. [applause] thank you all for being here this morning. I believe we are going to start with some comments from our esteemed senators who have joined us today, beginning with senator hatch. So called you up a first. So call you up first. i amr hatch certainly delighted to be today. Vicki kennedy is one of my favorite people in this world. I remember what a difference she made in the life of my really good friend ted kennedy. Ted, we did a lot together. We fought each other regularly. We got in some awful battles but we also agreed on a lot of things, too. And when we agreed, they better stay out of the way. We would be able to get somethings done and we did get a lot of things done. Ill never forget the yelling and screaming, undecided afford only take you to do in that booming voice of history and a standing over there ready to punch them in the mouth because he was getting on my nerves. When it was all over, when the debate was over he would come over and say, how did i do . [laughter] how can you get mad at somebody like that . Im glad to be with you for a few minutes today. I served with Senator Committee on the Judiciary Committee for 30 to you. 32 years. In fact, you see only senator who served on the committee longer than i have. I know this makes this older than i am but half of all tenured federal judges have been appointed since i joined the Judiciary Committee. The appointed process is an example of how americas founders sought to limit government power by dividing it. The president has the power to nominate, but cannot appoint without the advise and consent of the senate. And debate continues about how robust or sort of the senates role should be. The senatesve role should be. Three significant events, three, occurred in the Judiciary Committee on january 19, 1979. Senator kennedy became chairman. Senator leahy joined the committee, and the first hearing of the 96 congress focus on the selection and confirmation of federal judges. This ongoing issue is obviously front and center today following the death of Supreme Court justice antonin scalia. The Kennedy Institute poll earlier this year found that only 36 of americans know that the senate has a role, or has no role of advise and consent and the appointment of Supreme Court justices. Raising the awareness will do little good if americans are aware of but misunderstand the senate rule. Using Justice Scalia as an example the constitution gives , the senate the power of advise and consent but does not specify how the senate ought to exercise that power. Claims that the constitution dictates went and had the confirmation process most poker, such as the immediate Committee Hearings, and timely floor votes are false. In fact, that Judiciary Committee was not created until 29 years after the constitution was drafted. Second, the senate has conducted the confirmation process in different ways at different times under different circumstances. That Judiciary Committee held its first public hearing on the Supreme Court nomination in 1916, but the nominee did not appear. The regular practice, the nominees appearing publicly before the committee did not begin until the 1950s. Earl warren, for example, did not appear at his 1954 confirmation hearing to be chief justice of the United States. And in 2014 report, the Congressional Research service said this. Quote, neither the Judiciary Committee nor the full senate has compelled out on nominations which come before it. Our former distinguished colleague robert byrd made the point quote there is no stipulation in the constitution asked about the senate is to express its advice or give its consent. The senate refused to confirm a nominee simply by saying nothing and doing nothing, unquote. That is why the senate has a standing rule providing the nominations that are neither approved nor rejected our return to the president at the end of the twoyear congress. Nearly one quarter of all Supreme Court nominations were never confirmed. Nearly one quarter. Another crs report identified nearly a dozen different scenarios for how these nominations were handled. Some refer to the Judiciary Committee but never reported to the full senate. Some came before the full senate but were never considered at all. As a simple matter of historical precedents, the senate has never confirmed a Supreme Court nominee to a vacancy occurring this late in a president s tenure. The constitution does not mandate a one size fits all confirmation process but leaves these judgment calls for the senate to make. We tend to focus on the Supreme Court but the same issues apply to the confirmation process for Lower Court Judges as well. As pat and i both know by express, for example, Judiciary Committee chairman of both parties have often decided for Different Reasons not to conduct a Committee Hearing for various nominees. The committee likewise does not always vote on each nominee who has had a hearing. To suggest otherwise is to mistake historical fact, and misrepresent the meaning of advise and consent. My third point is that the Senate Majority has made its judgment call regarding fiscally a vacancy. For two reasons we decided that the confirmation process should take place after the president ial election season is over. First, conducting a heated, divisive confirmation fight in the middle of an ugly president ial election, and that certainly describes hours, our president ial election, or should i say season, that is well underway and we do more harm than good. Harmed in the confirmation process to the nominate and to the country. The second reason to defer the confirmation process is elections have consequences. The 2012 election have consequences for the president and his power to nominate. The 2014 election have consequences for the senate and its power of advise and consent. The 216 or 2016 election will have consequences for the American People because they can have a voice in the direction of the courts. The issue is when and how, not whether the senate should consider a nominee or the scalia vacancy. I dont want to throw off the schedule for this event right out of the gate so i believe it i will leave it at that. The senate plays an Important Role as a check on the president power of appointment. As senators of both parties have noted over the years, the senate does not play a rubber stamp. Opinions differ about how deferential or forceful the senate should be at the constitution leaves that judgment to us. James madison wrote that a well constructed people can be a permanently free people. That is the Kennedy Institute submission. Its a great institute. I have been happy to support it. Im happy to support ticky anyway i possibly can. All i can say, the Kennedy Institute mission is a great mission, and i want to thank you all for all that you do. Thank you so much. Appreciate being with you this morning. [applause] and now to voice his , complete agreement with everything that was just sad, i believe we have senator leahy. [applause] thank you very much. Being here, vicki, its always great to be here with you. And here in the kennedy caucus room. And just around the corner from where teds office was, i love, because my office is just above here, we used to end up going over to votes together all the time. And i so often recall, we start off and he would say, pat, did you hear the one come as we were walking through the halls, and then, then you have that booming laugh. And, of course, with the marble halls it would echo. Everybody would look around and see what was the joke . Oh, we forgot. But we had a wonderful time. I also learned so very much about, you know, the kennedy name is synonymous with public service. Had of course dedicated his life to the people of massachusetts but just as important to the people of america. Especially the disempowers disempowered and disadvantaged. Thats an inspiration to all of us. I wish today we have more of senator kennedys commitment to the constitution. I hope that this event might remind us what it means to be a true Public Servant in the kennedy note that it means having the government work for the people. It means understanding how our lives affect the people we serve. It means appreciate the awesome responsibility of a u. S. Senator for our after all only 100 of us to represent over 300 million americans. It means well up our sleeves and setting aside partisan bickering and finding ways to get it done. And with todays event, ill give you the most recent example. Of course, weve had numerous, numerous Supreme Court nominees confirmed in an Election Year. Every time theres been a vacancy in the Supreme Court in an Election Year, weve confirmed them. There are not that many vacancies that occur in an Election Year, but every time it happened we confirm the nominee. The most recent, and my good friend from utah may have forgotten this, but the most recent event was when Ronald Reagan was president. The democrats were in control of the senate, and we unanimously confirmed in a president ial Election Year president reagans nominee to the Supreme Court. It would be kind of nice to follow the most recent precedent. I know serving on the Judiciary Committee some of the most pressing issues are there. And ted kennedy made those, those front and center to the American People. Immigration, civil rights, two of the most important ones. But also the nomination of Supreme Court justices. Let me just quote senator kennedy because i totally agree with him. He said, few responsibilities we have as senators are more important than our responsibility to advise and consent to nominations by the president to the Supreme Court. Nobody disagreed with him at that time. Some of those who are serving with him at that time now take a different view. Tried to understood he understood the historical constitution mandated role of the senate. Toward its important that they that todays it focuses on the senates undeniable and irreplaceable role in providing advice and consent to the president s nominees. Senator hatch and i disagree on this. Because we know this is exactly what the Judiciary Committee should be doing this very week. If we follow the normal course once the president makes a nomination, members of the Senate JudiciaryCommittee Review the nomination record. We hold public hearings. Weve done this and then we vote on the nomination after careful the liberation. And if we follow normal routine, we will be holding those hearings this week. This is how its been for the last 100 years. In fact, when i became chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee in 2001 during president bushs administration, i come and then Ranking Member of the committee, senator hatch, memorialized how the committee would continue in his position to consider george bushs Supreme Court nominees. He and i sent a letter to all senators, and we wrote these Judiciary Committees traditional practices didnt report Supreme Court nominees to the senate come once the committee has considered its considerations. This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee. Senator hatch and i agreed on a. On it. We gave our word to the u. S. Senate. Thats the way we would do things, and the republican leader, trent lott, agreed and he took a letter, put in the record and he said the senate has a long record on the Supreme Court nominee to be given a vote on the floor of the senate, closed quote. All of us, republicans and democrats, agreed to do this because thats what we innocent we, in the senate, have done for centuries. Democrats agreed to that. Even with a republican president the republicans agreed to that with us. I want us to keep our word. I want us to keep our word. And do it in open and transparent manner. Now, the Kennedy Institute as vicki indicated released a National Poll that only 60 per 36 of the American People know that the Senate ConfirmsSupreme Court nominees. Our reaction to this should not be to deny judge Merrick Garland a public hearing and a vote, which would break 100 years of tradition, and mean we are failing to do our job. Instead of response should be to engage with the American People, show them through our action, have a public hearing. You know, a solid majority of the American People does know, by a two to one margin, that chief judge garland deserves to have a hearing. And we should do our job, follow our constitutional duty. Some claim that there are unprecedented destruction against chief judge garland is based on principle, not the person. Balderdash, thats not true. Some dared president obama to nominate chief judge garland. They praised his bipartisan support and is consensus, some of the same people object to hearing it for him now, said this would have been a good person for president obama to have in the Supreme Court. Others have attacked chief judge garland record. They view some of the dark money groups to attack him. Well, at least allow him a public hearing where he can respond. You know, its not a principled thing to attack them knowing he cant respond. And by not voting, what theyre doing is voting maybe. They can take any position they want. They can say yeah, i met with him and, of course, i met with him, knowing it would never have to vote with them but they can keep blocking it. They never have to be on either side. Well, we are likely to vote yes or no, not maybe. You are going to hear a lot on some of the senates most memorable confirmation debates. You see the senate has considered controversial nominees, but in every one of those instances the nominee received a public hearing and a vote. What would be historic is to deny chief judge garland a public hearing and a vote. That would be historic. This senator does not want that to be part of the history of the United States send it. You should demand your senators do their job by provide this nominate a public hearing so he can respond to the attacks on his record. I believe thats what ted kennedy would be doing. Its easy in politics, but senator kennedy appealed to the best of us. The appealed to our sense of justice, to our sense of responsibility, to are uniquely american belief in hope and possibility he appreciated the role of the senate. Sometimes you have to be instigated, sometimes defended, sometimes a compromiser. But we are called to fulfill our constitutional duties. We are called to lead. We need to do our job. It is my sincere hope that we will follow teds example, and not what i would like to do, if vicki, if you could come up here. I just have a personal thing id like to do. This is something i inherited when i became chairman of the committee. It is ted kennedys gavel that he had when he was chairman. Hold it up. The gavel, it says senator edward kennedy, u. S. Senate committee judiciary, 19632009, chairman 19791981. And i saw him we held that a gavel [laughter] [applause] [laughter] [applause] this is so beautiful. Its unbelievable, unbelievably beautiful and so meaningful. Ted kennedy love the United States. He said the greatest honor of his life was to serve the people of massachusetts in the United States senate. And the Judiciary Committee, along with what became known as the help committee, were his 21st committees. This meant so much to him. He fought for what he called the march for progress. Thats what the Judiciary Committee meant for him. Constantly fighting to make america america. Fighting to move us forward, fighting for the march for progress. He believed that what the Judiciary Committee did. He was proud to serve on it. He was proud for his entire time in the United States senate. As it says here from 19632009. We will cherish this always. It will have a place of honor at the Kennedy Institute and in my heart, as do you, pat. Thank you. [applause] thank you so much to senators hatch and leahy for the opening remarks that clearly frame the two sides of the issue as we find ourselves in today. Kennedy for your time. She informed us that she actually has a new a noon meeting up in boston and still found a way to be down there this morning. So we obviously really appreciate that. We have a few minutes here to talk with two experts at this issue over the history of the past 30 years really, and i wanted to start a bit with marty gold, the former counsel to the majority leader howard baker, and the wellknown author of the senate book, to talk a little bit about the history here. What is this advice and consent that we talk about in terms of how it actually exists and what is required of this . Thank you very much. And i want to say thank you to the Kennedy Institute to work in the United States senate 44 years ago. Senator kennedy was serving and i had the opportunity to watch the career of one of americas great senators not only in the era in which he served but in all of the american history. So its a great honor to be here and to be with all of you. The Constitutional Convention met between may 29, 1787, and september 17 of that year. They are have been a number of wonderful books written about the Constitutional Convention, two of them, the summer of 1787 by david stewart, and playing on this meant by richard neiman. They talk a lot about the issues that divided the members of the constitutional continued, the framers, but those issues principally did not involve this power but really, for example, the construction of the United States senateed itself, a body with equal representation for all the states. So defined studies that actually dissect this power one can look to an article that was written by adam j. White in the harvard journal of law and other policy in 2005. Mr. White was testing a proposition to president George W Bush who in the aftermath of his 2004 reelection said the senate has a constitutional obligation to vote up or down on president s judicial nominees. This was december 23, 2004. Mr. White tested a proposition and came to the opposite conclusion that the senate does not have a constitutional obligation, only a power. But how does that happen . You can trace this to the Constitutional Convention. There is one basic principle of politics that is absurd, and that is nothing is settled until everything is settled. That is to say, when they drafted the Constitutional Convention beginning first with article one powers of alleged infringement and turning to the article to bars, executive executive branch and then to the article iii powers, they understood as to make changes as to what a longer would affect things they previously written. So at the beginning of the convention George Washington presided over and said they would have a right over consideration to anything that event voted before could be voted again because i can make adjustments down the line, you might have to rethink what you done previously. This is what happened, this advice and consent power. The role of appointing judges was first advanced in the virginia plan to the Constitutional Convention set up my edmund randolph. In that case you had to house of representatives chosen not with the articles of Confederation Congress was with one person first aid, but on the basis of population, that is represent the most populist country been they will appoint the executive and together they will appoint the judges. Others sought to disagree with this. When it finally came before the cause of you convention of june 5 of that year it was criticized by people who wanted more executive power principally james wilson of pennsylvania. Madison of virginia proposed a compromise. Take the house of representatives out of it and have the senate appoint the judges by itself. But its important to understand when madison proposed that he wasnt on the senate as we know it now but he was talking about a senate that was going to be based on population just like the house of representatives, a smaller body but also based on popular vote or at least based on proportionality. Well, this went through the senate was chosen by the Constitutional Convention framers as the bodies is going to appoint the judges. They agree to this on june 13. Finally, after some of the plans were presented, new jersey plan, a plan by alexander hamilton, the idea of a Senate Appointment was finally affirmed by the full Constitutional Convention. And then we get into the middle of july at the composition of the sin is determined and is determined not to be as the virginias wanted it on the basis of population but as the people from the small states a states of new jersey and connecticut want to new jersey and connecticut wanted to the base of equal representation. That is a very different matter to that senate appointing judges is different from a senate that is related to the population of the entire country. So because this question to be it causes this question to be reopened. The following day nathaniel of massachusetts proposed a plan that was akin to what was used in massachusetts which was at the Upper Chamber of the legislature would affirm or not affirm the nominees proposed by the governor. So this notion that the executive nominates subject to the approval of the Upper Chamber of the legislature was put before the Constitutional Convention for the first time. Madison had a different idea. He said, look, how about if we say when the president , chief executive to make the appointments, and it will go through, unless within the specified amount of time onethird of the senators disapprove it . Madisons plan was rejected. The Senate Appointment was still a from. Affirmed. They have not accepted this executive limited and the Constitutional Convention went on to a committee and other processes through august of and 1787. Finally, finally after the executive branch was set up, august 1787, a committee on compromise is appointed. The committee on compromise the end of august, beginning of september reports that idea that the president will make the appointment like in massachusetts, the Upper Chamber of the legislature will be the affirm them or not affirm them. It was sent to the committee on december 12 and became part of the constitution of the United States upon adoption. On september 17. Now, not to cut that off, but in order to find a way to get forward to 2016, we are going to have to fastforward a bit. And once we have that system in place, can you, jeff, talk a little bit about this sort of where this went, into the path where we see ourselves today . And i believe you said that this sort of coincides with your entry into the senate. Well, thanks, chris. I want to add my thanks to martys can you hear . For inviting me and for the work they do to study and support this great institution. I dont want to thank vicki for her kind remarks. And most importantly for the joy she brought to the judgment brought to the center. To the senator. Working for them was a great privilege to meet and great fun. And all of us who love him and miss impartial grateful to vicki for everything she brought to his life. So when we were talking amongst us about how we would, the topics we would address on the panel, chris suggested i addressed how did we get here. And that billy joel song, we didnt start the fire, came to mind. The first Supreme Court nomination that i worked on was the bork nomination. Might differ a little about it. Its the only thing i worked on that is resulted in a verb, but i would submit another explain, i hope, what i think that is a bit of a bum rap. Over our history, since the founding, about one out of every four to five Supreme Court nomination has not been confirmed by the senate. Judicial philosophy has been considered by senators since the founding. Indeed, George Washingtons nominee to be chief justice not much was rejected in part because of his views about the jay treaty. I dont remember that. You know, ok. So why has the situation come to where it has . I would submit that there are two great trends really that collided in the 1980s. One is the Supreme Courts role in america really began to change in the 1950s with brown v. Board of education, with the civil war amendments, 13, 14, 15 amendments have not really been taken by the court as an engine for equality until the war in they were in court. The warren court upset the status quo in the country, and the salience of the Supreme Court as an institution grew exponentially over the intervening 30 years, right . There are some here, and among them, old enough to remember nph earl warren signs, Miles Per Hour will you go douglas signs in parts of the country. So the court was becoming increasingly salient. The second thing that happened, and this is something people dont really admit im either come welcome to the website of the battle, which is that the jurisprudence now understand, lawyers and law professors and judges now understand that richard posner, a great judge appointed by Ronald Reagan perhaps the most candid about this, that being a judge or justice interpreting the constitution is not as my former law partner said, and then an umpire and calling balls and an umpirer of being and calling balls and strikes. Chief justice roberts. It is instead a matter in which philosophy experience point of view matters. And so those two things collided in the 1980s, in the bork nomination. And in this room, for three weeks over which, during which i gained about 20 pounds, the Senate Judiciary committee consider his nomination. Judge borks views are controversial. We could get into that if we had the time, but philosophy matters. Philosophy clearly how one interprets the constitution, whether ones views are consistent with the great arc of justice to what senator kennedy was dedicated, of course, dr. Martin luther king articulated. That matters. And so the senate has taken it into account. I dont know how much time we have, but perhaps he ought to talk at some point about where all this goes. The two questions id like to get into as we go through this is, is this issue of duty. Theres been a lot of debate. There was a lot of comment in the comments from senator hatch, and applied in the comments from senator leahy about whether or not there is a duty of the senate to consider a nominee. Andi dont know if you wanted to talk a little bit about that, marty. The senate has a duty consider a nominee except how it considers compound exercises that duty as a matter of dispute. In a sense, inaction is also action. There have been any number of nominees certainly at the appellate level, go back president after president after president , where the nominees were left on the cutting room floor at the end of the administration because the senate did not exercise the right of advice and consent by approving nominees. Sometimes the nominees were bottled up in committee. During 20032004, 82005 there 2005, there were 10 bush judicial committees that came out of committee that were filibustered on the floor. There was a filibuster on the alito nomination. President obama, Vice President biden, senator Vice President biden, senator reid, senator schumer also boardedup the filibuster. So in that respect, what they were saying was this nomination should not get to a vote on confirmation. If the filibuster conceived as succeeded, as the filibuster have on the bush appellate appointments in 20032004 combat itself within a disposition of the nomination. Senator reid said he should not have done that. The president shouldnt have done that because the successful filibuster of the nomination in the Previous Congress was a disposition of that nominee. So at the end of the day there are many ways the senate can exercise that power of advice and consent of certainly voting the nominee up or down is one of them. But as has been amply established throughout history, there are other ways of exercising it. You get to a situation, this is not the madison situation where the president , nomination goes through unless the senate disapproves it. This is a completion power. This is like taking the example of a treaty, for example. The president opposes the treaty treaty but the treaty cannot be ratified by the president unless the senate consents. The senate can just leave the situation sitting there for years, as it has with the number of the treaties. So its the same exact kind of situation here. This power has been interpreted to be a power of completion not a power of veto. It looks like you might have something to say. Marty and i agree about a lot on this question, but not everything. Of course the senate has a duty. And i agree with marty that it is a question as many things are in life of degree. Ok. Most situations in life find factual distinctions can matter, can matter. But here the duty is clear. Here the duty is clear. It really arises from three things, the words advice and consent. Second, the very structure of the constitution, each of the branches has a duty that may be applied from the document comes Something Like that covenant of further assurance. Everyone who works in the senate and every senator, every president , every justice takes an oath to uphold the constitution. Part of that, implicit in that, a duty to make the branches work. If the president said, you know, im going to veto the legislative appropriations bill, we use of legislative appropriation bills