comparemela.com

Come on. The morning everyone. Certainly this is an important day in the history of the senate and the Supreme Court. As i look back on my career, i think the most consequential decision ive ever been involved in was the decision to let the president being elected pick the Supreme Court nominee. Of course, my colleagues backed me up and today we will confirm the nominee the new president has selected. I think as we all know, this is a person of extraordinary credentials who will bring honor to the Supreme Court for many years to come. It is indeed a proud day. I also want to express my support for the strikes the president name made last night against asad chemical weapon facility. The strike was wellplanned, well executed and more than a pinprick. It sends a message not only to asad that using chemical weapons again is something he cannot do with impunity but it also reassures our allies that america is back in terms of playing a leadership role in trying to be constructive in a variety of places around the world, as well as a message to iran and north korea. One other observation i would make that the democratic leader and i had a good meeting this week to discuss a way forward. The bill is one that cannot be done by one party alone. It will require bipartisan involvement. The appropriation committees have been working together on a bipartisan basis to come up with the package and the democratic leader will be in a role similar to what i was during the obama years. These kind of bills can pass without a reasonable number of the party of the minority in the senate and we are optimistic that we can work that out and meet the deadline at the end of the month. Youve spoken in support of the president s actions yesterday. In your mind what is the Constitutional Authority that underpins that and you have concerns about him using that authority however he may in the future. I think he had the authority to do what he did and im glad he did it. There senators from both sides of the aisle. [inaudible] would you be in support to have some sort of. [inaudible] i would be interested in looking at an if the president thanks he needs it. President obama, i dont think ever specifically asked for one either. He sent to. Yes but they were so restrictive that most of my members felt that it was to micromanage future executive Branch Activity in the area. The president can think of something that strengthens his hand i would be happy to look at it. You have opposed military action in syria as recently as 2013. What makes last night different. Let me show you the difference. Secretary kerry, in order to reassure the leftleaning members of his own party said it would be like a pinprick. It would not be of any great consequence but i dont know if he had in mind knocking out some camels or what, but the strike was wellplanned, well executed and went to the heart of the matter which is using chemical weapon. Had i seen that kind of approach by president obama, i am sure i would have signed up. Are we at the point now where u. S. Policy should be asads removal in syria. I think this strike was simply about dont use chemical weapons again. Thats what the strike was about. I dont think it necessarily leads to another conclusion, but i dont see how they can possibly be any settlement in syria that includes asad. I just cant imagine, after all the butchering of his own people that hes been doing for four or five years that there could be any successful conclusions to this chaos with him still there. I spoke with bob corker yesterday who said he would support additional sanctions on russia which is undergirding the asad regime. Would you consider pressing the president on that issue if theyll develop it and continues to help asad beef up his air defenses and future attack. I think its good that the administration has not lifted any of the existing sanctions, and if they feel they need additional sanctions, we can come up with something that has bipartisan support, i would be open to it. The russians are not our friends but i think theyve demonstrated that over and over and over again. I would be willing to speak with chairman corker and anyone else who thanks we need to go beyond where we are. First, has the white house asked for anything in the spending bill that you feel would jeopardize the ability to pass in the senate, and have you taughtalk to mitt romney about running for senate in utah. On the first question, you know i really dont like to negotiate these deals. All of those items are under discussion between the white house and democratic leader in the senate and the four corners on the committee. I cant specify how it all plays out. Ive had some conversations with mitt romney and obviously im in or in hatch supporter and or and has to decide what he wants to do. If he wants to run again, i am for him. Given that the president s certain you talk about your interaction with the president and the interaction on syria . Are you satisfied. I am. The Vice President called me last night and explain the rationale, how they were doing it and i thought it made a lot of sense. I thought it would be a strike that would be noticed, not a pin prick, and be directly related to the reason the tomahawks were sent in the first place, the use of chemical weapons. I approve of what the president did. I think it was not only an Important Message to asad but everyone else who may be wondering what this new administration might be like. If i was a sunni arab ally, i would be encouraged that america was back in the business of being more assertive and less passive. That does not mean you are going to send in the troops every time theres a skirmish, but i thought it was reassuring. Given that trump spurred to action in part because of some of the images he saw of families Young Children being killed by chemical weapons, do you think he should reevaluate his policy toward refugees from that region, given that a lot of them are children. Im not going to give him any advice about that, america has always stepped up in these refugee situations. How many people we take is always under discussion. One of the things i think democrats and republicans have said we need to look at over the years is to create some safe zones which would require military action, but to create some safe zones inside syria so people dont feel like they have to run for their lives. We already have an enormous number of people in jordan and turkey and europe, having all kinds of destabilizing impact on europe. We need to stop the refugee flow if we can, and that is something ive heard people on both sides talk about. Did you get a signal from the white house about what comes next . Will he be more military action or was this a onetime event. I think this strike was related to the use of chemical weapons only. I dont interpret this as the first step toward anything other than trying to eliminate or make sure he knows there are consequences for doing this again. You mentioned the spending bill is something you need to work with democrats on. Some of the other items, is there anything in the near term on the legislative agenda that will involve a lot of democratic support. All of the appropriation bills. None of these can be done one party only. As soon as we finish funding the government through september 30, we are already into the 2018 appropriation cycle. I am confident you looks at it the same with. There will be other bills. I will announce them when we get to them they report they had a very good fundraising month. How do you look at the prospect of getting at least eight seats right now. This is april 2017 and youre asking me to predict what will happen in the fall of 2018 . I decline the opportunity. I certainly hope we can hold the senate and that will certainly be our goal. Have you had any conversations from the president i dont that will be a problem. As you all if you follow Politics Around here, we intend to renominate our incumbents and we intend to play in primaries if there is a clear choice between someone who can win in november and someone who cant or the idea to remind people is to win the election. Frequently the primary in 2010 and 2012 dictated the outcome in november. We didnt let that happen again in 2014, we came to the majority. We only had one episode in 2016 in indiana and we nominated the right candidate and he won. I think its safe to say we will be looking for the most electable candidate possible, and i think the administration will defer to our judgment. Given what happened with the repeal and replace effort in the house, is there any consideration on tax reform to perhaps not use the reconciliation process and take a more bipartisan approach . Heres the problem. I have just gotten here when we did tax reform 30 years ago. Here was the situation. It was a Democratic House Republican Senate and republican president. We had a bipartisan agreement to be revenue neutral. The leader of the democrats on the issue was bill bradley. Not exactly a right winger. A very different environment. Todays Democratic Party seems to me believes that tax reform is about income redistribution, how much can we get out of successful people in order to push down to those who have been less successful. That is not about growing the economy. I would love to be able to do tax reform on a bipartisan basis, but i think most of the democrats believe tax reform is a tax hike. Tax reform is about making america more competitive. We didnt have a single year of 3 growth during the obama years. Were not going to be able to realize opportunities for the next generation and less we get this country growing again. I expect we will be left with the reconciliation and the central lack of interest on the democratic side in trying to get us going again. The two things that would get us going again, regulatory relief and weve done 11 cras and we hope to do more before the time runs out, the administration is trying on its own to curb, delay or stop some of the most egregious regulations that have slowed the economy down. If we can succeed in Regulatory Reform and get a more rational tax code, we can get this country growing again which will provide more jobs and opportunity for everybody. I would love the democrats to be a part of that. I dont think they look at this the same way we do, as a jobs issue and so im not anticipating their cooperation. Once more on syria, you said you did speak with the Vice President last night. Today asked for an explanation of what is the president strategy after the military strike . Do you have any indication from the administration of what is the broader syrian strategy at this point . And secondly, i wanted to follow up on the healthcare question. I dont know why anybodys confused. I thought it was very clear what the strike was about. You dont use chemical weapons without consequences. I think that is a pretty clear message, and i dont necessarily read into that a larger strategy in the area, but they certainly want to try to prevent the mass killing of innocent people by the use of chemical weapons. I thought it was a very clear way to send the message. On repeal and replace, do you feel thats anything that during the next. Could be. [inaudible] is it something that could get moving . What was the initial question . Obamacare. Obviously this is pretty hard to do, and if the house is able to send something over to us, we will pick it up and it will be hard here as well. The initial effort will be in the house. Are the democrats working on this pending bill. Yes. Senator schumer suggested otherwise hes not in communication with the white house. I thought they were talking to each other. I know he and director mulvaney met this week. That was a meet and greet. While not going to argue about that. Thats up to him to answer the question. I thought they were in communication. I was wondering, you said this is one of the most consequential decisions theyve made, the current president aside who will be on the Supreme Court, what do you think the ensuing debate impact will be on both the functionality of the senate and impartiality of the spring court. I think its important to remember, as you all heard me say over and over that the business of filibustering executive branch appointments is a recent thing, invented, ironically, by the current democratic leader of the senate. I hope you all did at least listen to the facts. There is a lot of spend out here but the democratic leader of the senate invented filibustering judges. Where we are is back where we were as late as 2000, where executive branch appointments to cabinet positions, subcabinet positions and court positions are dealt with with a simple majority vote. The core of the senate is the legislative filibuster. This business of filibustering judges is a creation of senator schumer when george bush 43. Elected. Not a longstanding edition of the senate. We are back to where we were as late as 2000 and the best test of that wouldve been the Clarence Thomas nomination in 1991. Nobody would be a argue that was the most controversial Supreme Court nomination ever. You all know all it takes to get 60 votes in the senate is one senator out of a hundred to say i want to get 60 votes. Nobody did. Thats a pretty strongly held custom. That is the way the senate operated until 2000. This notion that this somehow bleeds over into the legislative filibuster is untrue. Im opposed to it, senator collins, as you know is circulating a letter to senator schumer and myself of members who support the legislative filibuster. I would be the beneficiary, and my party would be the beneficiary of changing that. I am opposed to changing that. I think that is what fundamentally changes the senate. Republicans have always felt that way. Ill give you an example from ancient history. 1994, big republican sweep, took the house for the first time in 40 years and got the senate back. Tom harkin, who used to be here, was always in favor of turning the senate into the house. On day one he proposed a rules change to lower the threshold for everything to a simple majority. Every Single Member of the new, just elected, new republican majority voted no. i dont know. We dont have another seat right now. What id like to see after the recess is as getting back to some semblance of normalcy. Youve watched allnight sessions on capital appointments and a lot of other things that i think are obvious a response to the core base of the Democratic Party which still really in deep depression over the outcome of the election. I think its time to move past that. I hope a lot of the democrats who have been telling me privately they want to move past that will be able to do that publicly when we get back. Well have the opportunity to do it as soon as we get back. You said that syria conflict cant be youve also suggested opening to creating safe zones. Does it concern you disappears to be, but that doesnt appear to be a whats next from the white house . I think theres no easy answer whats next. What did you think we will succeed in doing, which the previous admin session started and i think this administration is going to finish, which is to get isil out of iraq. And the effort in western mosul is underway. Its bloody and difficult. But i think that will succeed. Secondly, i think secretary mattis has indicated hes going to recommend a residual force, stay behind in iraq. Theres a lot of fingerpointing about who was responsible for leaving entirely, in the early years of the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration said the iraqis wanted us to go, while the iraqis said no, we didnt. But regardless of whose idea was for us to completely withdraw from iraq, it was a bad idea. We needed a residual force left behind like we did in germany and japan and korea, and president obama to his credit left a residual force behind in afghanistan. I think those units helped guarantee that you dont have, sort of fight the war all over again. You announced his briefing today for the senate this afternoon but are there any considerations to come back during recess to debate authorization . To debate what . To debate authorization for syria spirit no. No. One more and were out. The vote on gorsuch today youll be singlehandedly responsible for the one major legislative victory by the Trump Administration so far. So im curious what evidence you can point to that this Administration Knows how to achieve legislative outcomes on the hill . I happen to think the congressional reviews weve been doing are significant. They will say the economy billions of dollars, and when we finished doing them we are hoping to entice all you into finally writing a story about how much we will leave for the economy, a has occurred as a result of repealing these regulations. But look, we are just in First Quarter of the year. Theres much left to be done and im optimistic we can accomplish a lot for the american people. Thanks a lot. Majority leader mcconnell briefing reporters earlier today before the final Supreme Court confirmation vote. Judge neil gorsuch was confirmed by the senate 5445 to become the newest member of the Supreme Court replacing the late antonin scalia. Over the years weve spoken to several sitting justices and we asked them to describe their first days on the job. We will start now with Clarence Thomas who joined the court in 1991. He talked about how a new member gets their sea legs and adjusting to the new job. Welcome a new associate justice. How long does it take them you talk about walking into congress the first time. When he watched new justices come important you arrived how long does it take before they get it . I dont know. I think we all learn at different paces but when i came to the court i asked that same question because it was very important to me to figure out when what i get my sea legs. The common number was five years. And Justice White would often say takes about that long to go around the full horror of all the cases, that the kind of cases that we get. That was their number. And that may be about right. That doesnt mean you cant do your work or it just means things are still new for the first five years. You know, you may not have had as many original jurisdiction cases involving water rights or boundaries. You may not of had a lot of admiralty cases. So you get all of that. It was chief Justice Rehnquist when i was complaining that my goodness, what am i doing here

© 2025 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.