Expecting another if Supreme Court vacancy this summer. What do expect . Thats quite possible. Its been a while since we had another vacancy except for the death of scalia. Host with the nomination, neal gorsuch, and that in the minds of democrats to have to consider him and somebody else, what does that mean in terms of the politics that well face in the coming months . Because of the way the base on the left is angry over the election and so forth. I think there is a real chance this is going to be a fight. And possibly a filibuster. Host turn to the wall street journal. Looking ahead at the next nation. If this is the ask lee kwla eat, if the next vacancy is is one of the more liberal members, that has the prospect of changing the direction of the court. No matter who is vacating them. Dont think youre going to see a whole lot of difference between the kind of person he nominated this time. And the kind of person who is going to be nominated next time. Think i it will be someone committed to, as he puts it, interpreting the constitution the way the framers meant it to e. He said other things about the judiciary as well where he talked about a judge who ruled against him. He talked about a judge in disparaging ferms when he had a case a couple weeks ago. The white house advisor, stephen miller, cast doubt on judicial review of executive actions. Then we had yesterday the white house chief of staff talking about judge gorsuch reflecting he vision of donald trump. Can you clarify what that vision is . Is that vision someone who does what the president wants as has been suggested, or does the president s vision bigger than hat . He has extraordinary legal talent. Hes an originalist. Texualings. He takes the constitution seriously. He understands the fundamental relationship between enforcing the structural constitution, the separation of powers, and checks and balances on the one hand. And the preservation of liberty on the other. That is what the chief of staff meant. In terms of whether judge gorsuch will be someone who is just a rubber stamp for the president of the executive branch, his record doesnt bear that out. Hes someone who has shown skepticism of overreach by the executive branch and administrative state. 7 i have no reason to believe thats going to change once he gets on to the u. S. Supreme court. Host josh of pit could he. There are two areas of executive power. You mentioned administrative, there is also National Security state. Is there anything from judge gorsuchs record which comes from a court that probably doesnt get as much National Security related cases as the courts here in the Washington Area do . Any that gives us his views of the president s authority in the ational security area . My perspective on this is that he understands to some extent the delicate balance on the one hand giving the presidency a good deefl speed and dispatch and flexibility in dealing with national crisis. At involve National Security my sense hes someone given his demeanor, analyzes issues, hell understand this bal and threat that needle carefully. Interestingly the one case involving administrative overreach that everyone focuses on had to do with the issue of immigration. This is one area where he found for the immigrant rather than finding for the government. None of this is clear, josh, but it seems to me that his record suggests he has some background of familiarity and some sense of the sensitivities involved in terms of striking the balance. If you were a democratic senator that harbors lingering bitterness and anger and conviction what happened to judge gar lapd was wrong, what would you or what have you seen advised any Democratic Senators in that situation to do . If i were a democratic senator who was angry about the way judge garland was treated, i would move on. I think we have seen over the past 15 or 20 years that things continue to escalate. Part of the reason why they escalate is that no one has been wanting to say we are spiraling down with this process. Someone needs to make the first move and extend the olive branch. Someone needs to bring some sanity into this process. If i were a democrat, i would try to do that in this instance. We have judge gorsuch, an extraordinary man who calls it the way he sees it. Democrats are not going to agree necessarily with everything he does as a judge, but he is an extraordinary guy who has widespread credibility. This is a Good Opportunity for them to move on. Whether they do it or not is a different question. If the roles were reversed. We had a similar election but it was Hillary Clinton who lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote coming off a mirror image situation, would you be urging republican senators to move on and let hillary appoint the liberal counterpart of judge gorsuch . Leonard i would urge them to scrutinize the nominee carefully, ask tough questions, and if they believe a democrat nominee does not share their view of the proper role of the courts or jurisprudence, and set some time to debate, having up or down vote, and give the judge a simple majority. If you want to vote no, thats fine. But that would be my position. That was my position with kagen and sotomayor. And that would be my position now. If in three years President Trump runs for reelection and the republicans still have the senate and the is another vacancy on the court, do you do you think senator mcconnell will follow the same rule in 2016 and not go ahead with the confirmation hearing of the Supreme Court nominee . I dont know what senator mcconnell would do. It seems to me if you are close in time to an election, there is a very fair argument to be made that you wait. Thats because its an important defining issue. Its one of the most important things a president does. I think senator mcconnell would be very justified in making that decision. Will he . I have no idea what would he do. Ost josh. You mentioned senator cruz said there would be another potential vacancy on the court. One of those potential vacancies is Justice Kennedy who is a epublican appointee. There is been some talk he might choose to leave the court while there is a republican in the white house. There is also another school of thought that says Justice Kennedy has been the swing vote in several close decisions over the last couple of years that has set pretty significant precedent in the country on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and so forth. Which of those factors do you think would be foremost in his mind in making the decision to retire . Eonard i do not know. I do not think he even knows at the moment. We are in the middle of the confirmation process, and the court has been without it ninth member for a wild. While. I did not know what Justice Kennedy is thinking. If i were him, i would want to take stock of what the environment is like after the confirmation takes place. See if the court stabilizes and return to a state of normalcy. I would want to sort of think about my own, personal situation, but mainly i would want to make sure the court is back to normal. If it is, then as a justice i would have the flexibility to decide if i wish to retire now or sometime in the not so distant future a year or so from now. I do not know what he will do, but that is what i suspect any good justice would think about. You dont think his concerns on specific issues, such as abortion, affirmative action, areas where he seems to be people wait to see what the kennedy opinion is really more than what any of the other justices say, is that a factor in that decision . Leonard i do not know if it is for him or not. Knowing what i do know about him and his dedication to the effectiveness and independence of the dictionary, the importance he places on smoothly and effectively running courts, i think he will be thinking a lot about the courts and their institutional integrity more than anything else. That is not to say he would not think about those other things i do not know. He cares very deeply about the institutional integrity of the Supreme Court. I think that will be foremost in his mind whenever he makes the decision to retire whether it is a summer for two summers from now. To their credit i think all of the justices on the court right now are very, very attuned to that. Having seen a number of retirements and retirement scenarios, a number of passing on the court including a chief justice, i think they are all attuned to this. I think that is a good thing for the longterm health of the court. To followup up on that, is it any coincidence that Justice Gorsuch was a law clerk for Justice Kennedy. And after this nomination it was suggested that the president was considering two other former law clerks to Justice Kennedy as potential appointees for the next seat. You are right at the storm center of this issue. Is that a coincidence that being a Justice Kennedy clerk is an important qualification . Leonard i do not think the fact that judge gorsuch was a clerk to Justice Kennedy had anything to do with it. The fact hes a former Supreme Court clerk has a lot to do with it. But the other names its not surprising. Justice kennedy has been on the court since 1987. He is one of the longest sitting members of the court. And so, the fact of the matter is that he has turned out more law clerks than most. There were a couple of judge scalia clerks on the list being hrown about. Justice scalia was on the court a long time. Whenever you have a longserving justice, there is a greater degree of likelihood a number of those law clerks, especially the more accomplished ones, will end up surfacing on short lists. I think its more than that any effort to cull favor with a particular justice on the court. You are advising the president by Supreme Court nominee. What does that mean . Leonard it means you listen a lot because you want to get a sense of what the president s perspectives are on what he wants in a justice. It means you 2r50eu to be you try to be an honest broker of information. That means not only serving the president from time to time, but also working closely with his whout counsel. It means trying to be a team of player to try and get it right. That means knowing everything you can know about perspective nominees. Once there has been a nomination, knowing everything you possibly can about the record. And knowing how to navigate the process. It can be a very contentious process. Not just with democrats, but also how republicans deal with the nomination and confirmation process, how vigorous theyll be in pushing things forward. You have a lot of moving parts. Can i ask you a question about judge gorsuch . His mother was at the center of a washington scandal of the early 1980s. I think she was forced to resign by the reagan white house. I think she was ultimately cleared or anything really came of that controversy. Have you talked to him about what impact that had on his views of washington and his views of congress and so forth . Leonard i did not have to talk with him, because one of the things i did was i read her book about that entire chapter in her life. There is a page in that book where she talks about a young neil gorsuch. Who i believe at the time was attending georgetown prep. He was very upset both with the way his mother was treated he believed she was treated unjustly, and he was very upset that she stepped back from public life. And felt that she shouldnt be quitting and walking off the stage. I have not spoke with him about it i do get the distinct sense that something came out of that experience for him. I think he developed a sense of what trial by fire in washington means. I think he developed a sense of courage and determination that there will be times when barbs are cast on you, but you have to be determined and forebear. That is my sense of it based on what i read. Also by the way he comports himself and thinks about the confirmation process. He will be honest and candid. We have about 10 minutes left. During the campaign, President Trump put out two lists, a total of 21 potential nominees to the Supreme Court. He said he promised to pick someone from that list. Judge gorsuch was on it, but it also included in number of state judges. I believe one, maybe more trial judges, u. S. Senator. His ultimate selection is someone who really you have to say embodies the elite of the legal world with his degrees from colombia and harvard and arshall scholar at oxford. They are all tremendous reflections of his intelligence and skill, however they are the quintessential mark of being in the elite. You have an administration that, day in and day out, talks about attacking the establishment and deconstructing the establishment. He is about as establishment as you can envision like most Supreme Court nominees. Why didnt the president decided to go with someone who so clearly embodies the very classical background of a Supreme Court nominee in recent decades instead of someone who, like him, comes from the outside and brings a someone different perspective yet also has of course credentials like many other people on that list . Leonard first of all, i would remember what he said that judge gorsuch was out of central casting. In a way everything you described is how you would describe central casting for the judicial world, right . The degrees he has. The judgeship that he currently occupies. Service in the Justice Department. In that respect, you could say that neil gorsuch is part of the establishment, but in other respects he is not. First of all, he is a westerner. It is been a long time since we have had a justice from the west. He actually clerked for one of them. Byron white. When you get to know neil gorsuch, can you see there is that love of freedom and that love of accountability and transparency in government that westerners often exhibit. That is a little bit different from the northeast, white shoe aw firm mentality. It is true that neil gorsuch is a lawyers lawyer in many ways. He is also a little scrappy, too. This is a guy who was there at the very beginning of the founding after very successful law firm. It is a kind of unconventional law firm. Its not your average big, several hundred law firm. It may be getting that way today but when he was first there it wasnt. He was a kind of scrappy lawyer who did a lot of the investigation. It represented a lot of maverick entrepreneurs in his early litigation. From that experience, i think you see that neil gorsuch is it is a bit of a bull. Hes someone willing to express his opinions. Writes a lot of separate opinions, concurrences and dissents, which is another mark of someone who is not just establishment and conventionle, but is sort of willing to speak his mind. Yes, he definitely has those degrees, but the fact of the matter is he took a bit of an unconventional path by going to oxford and doing a serious dissertation on a very heavy as heavy topic and spending time with some very special philosophers at oxford. Even though that may seem highbrow, but it is not exactly establishment when it comes to the normal career that a lawyer or judge has. He has some odd aspects to his background that make him seem a little bit different than some of the other folks like justice scalia. Can you tell us what really made the difference to you and the president and other counselors narrowed down this choice . All these people there they were certainly legal heavyweights. But what was it about gorsuch as opposed to the other people in the mix that made the president say, this is the one. This is the guy i want people to see on the court and associate with me. Leonard there is no question that being exceptional is important. Having those credentials and that sharp analytical mind. I do not want to undersell the importance of that. The president cares very deeply about that kind of branding to be sure. E is committed to quality. At the same time, he made it very clear early on in the campaign trail and his advisors and the staff, that courage, courage was something very important to him. The way he put it in our first meeting after the november election was that he wanted someone who was not weak. There are a lot of smart people in the legal world who could serve on the u. S. Supreme court, but the real question that i think every president should ask, and the question he did ask was, does this person have the courage to do what he thinks is right . F you look at Neil Gorsuchs record, you see a man who has that capacity and determination. I think one of the most striking aspects of it is the number of separate opinions he writes as a court of appeals judge. The way he writes those opinions a lot of wit and humor. Occasional barbs. Less than justice scalia, but occasionally. He is willing to raise questions, and i think that was very attractive to the president. One issue that comes up at times on the Supreme Court for confirmation hearings is developing a full record. You mentioned earlier that judge gorsuch served at the Justice Department for a few years. Is there any possibility we will see some records of his work at justice during that time before the confirmation hearing takes place . Leonard i would expect those to be requested by democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee. Memos or emails. There will have to be some level of negotiation regards to what aspects of that can be disclosed. But, yes, i think those requests will be made. And i wouldnt be surprised if some of that material becomes art of the record. So the administration is not opposed to disclosing any of that . Leonard i have not been told what their process is for reviewing that material, but there is a long tradition of going through that material and trying to provide anything that would be most illuminating to the senate. Behind the scenes, there was a mention from counselor steve bannon yesterday during an ppearance at cpac. He said something about getting ready to nominate 102 judges. Is that right . What can you tell us as far as those vacancies at the District Court levels . Where things stand in the process, and how quickly the white house plans to be able to bring forth nominees for some of those positions . Leonard first of all its my distinct impression that those nominations to the lower federal courts are high priority for the president and for Senior Administration staff. Having so many vacancies out the gate is significant and arguably unprecedented. It was something very much on his mind shortly after the election. He expressed on several occasions the importance of moving quickly. The administration is also aware of the fact that one of the criticisms that the bim, the george w. Bush administration received literal on was its inability to get the first court of appeals nominees out until early may. So, there were some that are very mindful of the fact that things need to move quickly on this. In terms of when, the answer is yes, there have been conversations with senators and some vetting taking place both before and after the inaugural process to try and figure out who might be qualified for any number of these different positions. I would think that the administration would want to get something done start to get something done at least as quickly as possible. While i do not think any kind timetable has been set yet, i wouldnt be surprised if you start seeing nominations in early, very early to mid spring. Late march, april time frame. We have a minute left. One, final question. Hes going to be asked a lot of questions during his confirmation hearing, judge gorsuch, among questions by the democrats, views on abortion, whether or not money is free speech . How direct and candid you think he will be during the testimony . Leonard here is the irony, the democrats want judge gorsuch to be an independent judge, but then they are going to ask him for precommitments on all sorts of kind of cases. They are going to want to prejudge those cases in front of the American People, which is inconsistent what they are saying about judicial independence. If neil gorsuch is smart about how he handles this, the answer will be, i am sorry, senator. I wasnt asked those questions by the president , if i had been asked i wouldnt give an answer and i wont give you one is my duty to the American People is not to prejudge these cases and to be aindependent spirit on the court. Leonard leo, thank you for your time here on newsmakers. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] i want to begin with a headline from last week on politico. That judge gorsuch has a Charm Offensive on capitol hill. What has been happening and what can we expect when the confirmation hearings get underway in a few weeks . Hes been going to many meetings as nominees do. I think hes had made a fairly successful impression. A lot of the response to judge gorsuch out of the gate from the liberal groups was that he was an acceptable, radical conservative. You hear that a little less from senators on capitol hill as opposed to the interest groups. They seem to be keeping their powder dry. He seems to have been getting some traction with democrats. I still think the issue really, despite all the attention to gorsuch, is not about gorsuch. Its really about garland and how did democrats extract, if they cant get a pound of flesh for what was done to garland, an ounce of flesh or a speck of flesh over that. It is a combination of that issue and this question of what happens for the next nominee. What can we expect when that gavel comes down for the Judiciary Committee . On march 20 . I think for the republicans it will be a complete lovefest for judge gorsuch. The democrats are still trying to figure out what to do because they dont have the votes to stop him. If they invoke a filibuster, the odds are very strong that the republicans will eliminate the procedure and put him on the ourt anyway. I think as josh said, it will be very much not about judge gorsuch but about judge garland. Even more so, i think it will be about President Trump. I think the democrats will see judge gorsuch as an opportunity to bring up many of the things that trump has said and done and put gorsuch on the spot as to whether he would support those things. Or whether they raise significant legal questions or constitutional questions. The more they can try to put daylight between gorsuch and trump maybe that helps gorsuch better, but if it makes trump look bad, the democrats will count that as a win. How can he prepare for these hearings . He has to be prepared for all these kind of questions. They are typically called murder boards at the white house where he is asked about very type of question. Theyve been talking about some of the answers that judge gorsuch might give to some questions put forward. Theeg usually the process theyll thats usually the process theyll go through. As jeff points out, there are some very specific questions that will be rising such as President Trumps travel ban exec testify order of it might be in the throws of a heating discussion. You can only imagine that that kind of discussion will make its way into that hearing whether he wants to answer questions about that or not. To avoid the nuclear option, at least eight democrats need to align with the 52 republicans in the senate. Do you think there will be at least eight democrats that will support his nomination . I think the democrats are looking very closely at what their base wants them to do. They cannot win, so the question is how do they want to lose . Do they want to lose in a way that preserves the possibility of a filibuster at the tail end of the trump administration, or do they just want to show their followers, their constituents they are fighting what they consider to be at best a quasilegitimate president and certainly an illegitimate nomination for a seat they believe president obama should have been able to fill a year ago with another very qualified candidate, judge garland. Josh burstein, Senior Reporter for politico. Gentlemen, think you both for being with us. Thank you, steve. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Isit ncicap. Org] today in the Senate Debate and votes on two President Trumps nominees. Senators will vote at 7 00 eastern time on the confirmation of wilbur ross for commerce secretary. And move forward with congressman ryan zinkes nomination for interior secretary. You can watch the debate and votes on the nominations on cspan2. Still awaiting votes in committee, businessman, sonny purdue for agriculture secretary. Former indiana senator dan coates for National Intelligence director. Attorney robert lighthieser for trade representy. Of Iowa Governor for ambassador to china. Alternative David Friedman for ambassador to israel. And form congresswoman, heather wilson, for secretary of the air force. Today President Trump met with Health Insurance companies c. E. O. s in the white house for racening session. He told the group he wants to work with them to arrange a smooth transition from obamacare to a republican plan. And that he hopes to work with democrats