Calendar. There is not one argument they have made that can apply there. In my view, that decision was made in november 2013. For 200 years, the standard for confirmation of a federal judge in the United States senate was 51 votes. That is how the constitution has operated, its how the senate has operated for most of this countrys history. Indeed, no Supreme Court justice in history has been defeated because he was filibustered. The only arguable example is a nomination that was withdrawn in the face of the scandal. No justice in history has been filibustered. The notion of filibustering federal judges was largely the invention of Chuck Schumer in 2001 when george w. Bush became president and Senate Democrats then began unprecedented filibusters of federal judicial nominees. I hope that next week the democrats do not choose to filibuster judge gorsuch, a candidate for whom they voted unanimously just a decade ago. If they do, i am confident the senate will return to the rules that govern that body for two centuries. One of the easiest illustrations of that is to recall the nomination of Justice Clarence thomas. I believe he has become one of the greatest Supreme Court justices in history, but we all remember that his nomination was highly controversial at the time. Democrats were very animated that my friends who are protesting over here were no doubt very animated about clarence thomas. And yet, Justice Thomas was confirmed with 52 votes. Not a single democrat demanded of filibuster. Any individual democrat couldve demanded the 60 vote threshold. Ted kennedy did not demand a 60 vote threshold for judge thomas. He was confirmed with a simple majority. That, if the democrats make the illadvised decision to filibuster next week will be the rule to which we return, the rule that has governed the senate and Supreme Court nominations for two centuries. I guess thats the end of it then. Thank you all very much. Thank you. [laughter] [applause] the senate will vote next week on the nomination of judge Neil Gore Gorsuch to replace justice scalia. If approved, goes to the full senate with a final vote planned for friday april senate. We will have live coverage on the cspan networks. Heres what Senate Democrats had to say about the process this week. Thank you everyone for being here as we warm up the crowd for the warner spectacular. I am here with our minority leader Chuck Schumer, and my friend and former attorney general colleague Dick Blumenthal to call for a little bit of daylight into the dark money that is presently shadowing the nomination of judge gorsuch. During the course of the hearing, we explored the Supreme Courts role to arbitrate fairly between parties when litigation comes to the highest court in the land, as we saw over and over again, there are 5 4 partisan decisions from the past Supreme Court that have a very distinct trend. If it is republican interest versus democratic interest in election cases, they came down in those 5 4 decisions 6 0 for the republican interest against the democratic interest. When cases came before the court that put a corporation up against a regular person, in the 5 4 partisan decisions, they came down 16 0 in favor of the corporation against the person. The court has another role then to arbitrate fairly, and that is that it has a place in our constitutional system of democracy, our balanced constitutional democracy to help safeguard and protect the popular democracy that our founders tried to create for us. In that role, dark money is a very significant threat. Justice gorsuch blindness judge gorsuch blindness to that as a legitimate concern for the hearing, and his lack of curiosity as to who is actually spending millions and millions of dollars in a Political Campaign to secure his confirmation was very disappointing. This is a vital issue for american democracy to face up to, the difference between popular democracy and oligarchy can be the public knowing whose hands are pulling what strings and dark money hides those hands. So, let me play the video clip, or ask to have the video played and senator blumenthal will be followed by leadership or leader Chuck Schumer. I dont understand the dark money that is spending money on your election spent at least 7 million against him him being garland, and now theres a 15 million delta and im trying to figure out what they are doing. Do you have any answer to that. You would have to ask them. We are. Sorry. We are. Thats what we are here to do, to ask that question. Thank you. I didnt mean to interrupt your video. I thought it was over. No problem. Well my colleague from new york took the words right out of my mouth. We are, we are asking the Judicial Crisis Network, and we are asking again judge gorsuch, who is paying for these ads . It is that simple. The appalling unacceptable fact is that american justice is being bought. We want to know whos paying. They bought the ads against mayor garland and now they are buying the ads for judge gorsuch, carefully targeted to have maximum political impact. Now, this fact would be appalling enough but the other facts here are that judge gorsuch elevated many of the most pertinent and important questions during this hearing. He did so after the president who nominated him established a litmus test saying that his nominee would automatically overturn roe v wade, that he would strike down gun violence measures, he would be conservative, and the president outsourced his Selection Process to the Heritage Foundation and two other similar hard right conservative groups that prepared lists for him, screened them, and advised him so the question is, who is behind these ads because it is not only the Judicial Crisis Network and those groups, it is a network of conservative donors who are operating to buy american justice. Lets be clear. President trump wasnt Just Consulting these outside groups, he was outsourcing the Selection Process and we want to know who is providing the funds that, in effect, are the Critical Resources to try to shape the outcome. If the American People and our colleagues have the sunlight shown on this money network, they will be better informed about whether judge gorsuch should be the next member of the United StatesSupreme Court. We are, i think, united in this effort towards disclosure, and i think there will be others who will join us because it is the right thing to do and im hoping maybe our republican colleagues will show some curiosity in who is spending 70 million on a justice. Unprecedented, historic, appalling and im proud to introduce our leaders. Thank you and i want to thank sheldon and richard who have both been leaders on the general issue of sunlight, in terms of where all of these millions of dollars in very wealthy special interest people, where they are placing their money and right here is a case in point. Lets look at how judge gorsuch got to this point. He was recommended for the federal bench by a hard right special interest billionaire. Then he was handpicked for the Supreme Court by the right wing special interest relate laden he foundation and federalist society. Now millions of dollars in undisclosed special interest donations are being used to prop up his nomination. American deserve to know who is funding this effort to get judge gorsuch on the highest bench in the land. Especially if these secretive funders are pushing his nomination because they believe judge gorsuch will vote their way. Judge gorsuch had a chance to distance themselves from these groups when he was asked question after question by my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and, he refused to answer them. Raising the suspicion further that he is not a balls and strikes guy, but rather represents the hard right special interest wing of american politics. Thats why he is having trouble earning 60 votes. There was a seismic change after his hearing. There was suspicions about judge gorsuch when you look at his early writings and who he hung out with, and particularly that he was on a list that the Heritage Foundation, who most republicans think is too far to the right was chosen from that list. He was chosen from that list. Then when he wouldnt answer questions, you say what is he hiding. These are not difficult questions to answer. He wouldnt even answer, for gods sake, do you agree with brown v education. He was told by his handlers dont answer anything, and he did a good job of that. Let me be clear. He was hand picked by special interests, he is supported by special interest and has a record of supporting with special interest. He comes off as very careful. If he fails to earn 60 votes and fails to demonstrate he is mainstream enough to sit on the highest court, we should change the nominee, not the rules. The republicans are the ones making the choice to go nuclear. This idea, oh, we have no choice, it theres free actors. They could easily come to another nominee who might be a little more mainstream. President clinton, president obama consulted republicans before they nominated someone. President trump went to the hardest right sector of american politics and said you give me your wish list and i promise you i will pick one of those so, the republicans should not make it their choice to go nuclear. They are acting as if the rules change is inevitable like its the only choice of 60 senators dont agree that judge gorsuch should be confirmed. They are wrong. The answer is not to change the rules, it is to change the nominee. If the Nuclear Option is invoked, it is because our republicans in the senate chose to do so. I know my friend the majority leader is fond of saying that judge gorsuch failing to get 60 votes would be the first partisan filibuster in history. Give me a break. It was Mitch Mcconnell and the republicans who didnt even get to the filibuster. With mayor garland. He broke 230 years of precedent by instituting a new policy of refusing a president Supreme Court nominee last year. That was worse than a filibuster. They wouldnt even get to the filibuster with justice garland and just as the republicans were free actors when they didnt give garland a hearing, no one forced them to do that, they are also free actors now if they decide to change the rules, it will be on their back. Were going to stay on the subject. [inaudible] is it not interpreted as revenge for what happened in 2013 there saying you are extracting revenge and we were free actors in 2013. Like it or not we change the rules for lower court judges. There were scores and scores of them held up for months and months and years. We made a deliberate decision based on the merits that the Supreme Court is too important to go to a 51 vote situation. We made a decision that you should get 60 votes on such an important position so there would be some bipartisanship and some mainstream. President trump didnt go to the mainstream. He didnt consult democrats, he didnt consult anyone but the Heritage Foundation. He didnt even consult mainstream or moderate republicans. We left the Supreme Court of out of it deliberately. Lower court judges are not this same. I think, on this issue, we showed where we were at plain and simple. Have two questions. One may be slightly offtopic. What we want to stay on topic first. Just initially, on your topic, what is the strategy when the stakes are going to be higher with the next nominee. Why not let judge gore gorsuch. We believe he does not belong on the bench. We also believe that there are, we believe there are republicans who are reluctant to change the rules, and we hope they wont do it. They are free actors, and so to assume they are going to change the rules is not actually correct, and if there were going to change the rules on this one, why wouldnt they change them on the next one after words anyway. And if i may,. Ill chime in on that because we are dealing with some history here. We are dealing with the history of 5 4 decisions where all the republicans on the court posse up and ride out, and by 60 megs zero make decisions that help republicans at the polls and by 16 0 make decisions that helps corporations against humans. They have a track record of what happens when you let that fifth justice on the court so, this actually is the moment of decision. If they get five, off they go perhaps, and the failure of judge gorsuch to recognize that this pattern exists, that this pattern is a legitimate cause for concern, and his failure to distance himself from the pattern sent a very strong signal to all of us that he is ready to settle up and go right back out there for republicans at the polls, and for corporations, even at the expense of our democracy. This is, to me, the critical moment. We will face later choices and we will face them with whatever tools we have at our disposal, but the idea that we will walk away from this moment and let them rebuild that 5 4 court when it has proven itself to be so partisan, so predictably partisan, not a fight we can walk away from. Not with this judge being so evasive about where he will fall. And let me just add one more point, there is this myth now that somehow the next one is the important seat on the court. Every seat on the court is equally important, and judge gorsuch record shows how deeply conservative he is. Ive been a law clerk on the Supreme Court. Ive argued cases there. There is no such thing as a less important Supreme Court justice. Not only is each of them potentially a swing vote, but each of them can sway others, and judge gorsuch has shown himself to be skillful, artful, articulate and a deeply conservative judge with that bench who can sway his colleagues is as important certainly as the next potential appointee, if there is one. We are all saying for the premise of your question that there will be another. One final thing. If they are so quick to change the rules this time, they will be just as quick to change it next time. We are fighting this judge because of the reasons that sheldon and dick outlined, but let me tell you something, if right now already, with this kind of nominee chosen by this group theres thing were going to change the rules, they will change it again. He simply said he will trigger the Nuclear Option. Lets hope he doesnt. Has he told you he will . No when we are hoping, theres a good number of republicans who are grumbling about this. They are free actors. Theres nothing that says they have to change the rules if gorsuch doesnt get 60, and the logic, the irresistible logic is, if the nominee doesnt get 60, you change the nominee, not the roles. What is your argument to republicans. Im just confused the argument is the same argument we used on ourselves. This is too important a position. It should get bipartisan buyin. A nominee for the Supreme Court should not be approved by a razor thin majority. This is the highest court in the land. A lifetime appointment. The Supreme Court is different, and it should require a consensus of more than 60 votes. A bipartisan consensus before someone is put on the court. Every judge of the last four met a 60 vote bar. Three of them got more than 60 votes and justice alito. More when there was attempted filibuster. Gorsuch should have to meet the same bar, not change the rules. Thats just the president. Of course but theres no rule now. They could change the rules anyway they want. Someone has to file closure motion. We believe in the 60 vote threshold. Thats why we are filing the motion. That is allowed in the motion right now. Okay, last question. I interrupted the second question. Very briefly on another subject. Oh another subject. Well then you dont get to ask. [laughter] the present looked out in the crowd and said hello chuck, are you going to work with him on healthcare . We sent him a letter today that says we want to work with you on healthcare. Make sure that you dont undermined the aca because youre angry or out of vengeance because if you undermine our Healthcare System you are hurting americans. Thats not being a president and thats not leading. Second, we said, this idea of repeal has proven not to work. Trump care got about 17 popularity in the polls right before it passed. Once they get off this kick of repeal and stop undermining the Healthcare System, we have suggestions we want to make to make the system better. They will have suggestions, we should get in a room and try to make the system better. We are happy to do that. Mad one thing to that. Just by way of example that proves this can work, if there is an issue that is nearly as divisive as healthcare, its education. The help committee recently rewrote the entire secondary education law, the every Student Succeeds at. It wasnt a little change in law, it was a big change in law. It came out of the help committee unanimously. If the president wants to get something done, he ought to charge the Senate Committees to use the regular process of governance to have hearings, to hear witnesses, to consider amendments, and to Work Together in bipartisan fashion to get something done. It has been done. Very recently. It can be done again, but it doesnt work when you go to the far right specialinterest groups, grab crazy things off the shelves and try to jam those crazy things through the congress, which by the way looks a lot like what theyve done with judge gorsuch. Go to the right wing interest groups, grab someone off the shelf and try to jam them through without proper consultation or awareness of what the concerns are. Just to reiterate, you cant govern from the hard right. President trump campaigned against both the democratic and republican establishment. When he came into office, he chose his appointments, including Supreme Court and government from the hard right. Even without democrats he is having trouble doing that as trump care shows pretty well trouble constantly and less he moves to the middle and we are waiting for him to do it. Thank you. Hillary clinton spoke out this morning about the role of women and how cuts in International Healthcare developments and diplomacy would hurt women and children. She made the comments at the ceremony for the 2017 Hillary Rodham clinton awards at Georgetown University in washington d. C. Heres a portion that cspan tweeted out this morning. Studies show, here i go again, talking about research, evidence, and facts. [applause] [applause] but, in fact, when women are included in peace negotiations, agreements are less likely to fail and more likely to last. This weekend, cspan city tour with the help of our Comcast Cable partners will explore the literary scene and history of chico california. Saturday at noon eastern on book tv. The author tells us about the founder of chico in his book john bidwell and california, the life and writings of a pioneer, 1841 1900. Most important in longlasting relationships with the federal government, starting with the days in congress was his relationship with the United States department of agriculture. He was constantly being, constantly corresponding with officials in the usda, and was constantly receiving from them different crops that they wanted tested out in californias soil and climate. They really used rancho chico as one of their experimental farms before they owned and iran their own. On sunday at 2 00 p. M. Eastern on American History tv, we visit the California State University farm. It is the number one industry in california yet and the number one state the nation in terms of agriculture. There are 23 campuses but only four have agriculture. Chico represents the northern part of the state but we draw students from all over california to get experience in agriculture. We will also go inside the chico museum to see the historic chinese altar from the 1880 1880 chico chinese temple. Watch sunday at 2 00 p. M. On American History tv on cspan three. Working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. President trump met with the National Association of manufacturers at the white house today and help the Group Released a new survey. Have found that more than 93 of members polled now have a positive outlook on their companies, up from less than 57 this time last year. Jay timmons says the number is the highest in the quarterly surveys 20 year history. Hello everybody