the president saying he s not looking to any specific decisions or the way that a justice would rule on any particular case. he said i m not asking anybody how they would rule on roe v. wade or seek to overturn it. sarah sanders said earlier today that judicial philosophy and qualification for the job really is what the president is looking for. listen here. the main thing the president is looking for are people that fit the qualifications that you would went in a supreme court justice. tremendous intellect. someone that will stick to upholding the constitution and somebody that has great judicial temperament. you mentioned the top of this, neil, mike lee. the white house is laying down a lot of smoke around this process. they were very happy to read stories that the president was interviewing mike lee for the
but what is particularly interesting here is the way this decision came down. this was a 5-4 decision. and the newest justice here at the supreme court, neil gorsuch, a conservative, he sided with the liberal justices here. that may seem surprising, but it goes exactly in line with neil gorsuch s judicial philosophy. he believes in textualism, he believes in reading statutes as they re written and not reading more into them. so this basically means the statute didn t have that definition. neil gorsuch, of course, his mentor, the late justice antonin scalia, that s likely exactly how justice scalia may have ruled here. so, again, the supreme court invalidating a federal immigrationallowed for deportation for crimes of violence and the conservative justice casting the deciding
just started with donald trump. i doubt very much this is the kind of thing trump actually cares about. it s hard to think that he cares about judicial philosophy. he doesn t. president trump loves to have support and for evangelical family value voters who supported president trump win, lose or draw through the access hollywood tape, many of us scratched our heads saying this is morally reprehensible behavior. why are you okay with it? this is the devil s bargain they made and this started before he was elected. the reason he s had so many judicial nominees to send up, mitch mcconnell and republican senators the last two years basically stopped confirming judges. there were a few confirmed but most famously they wouldn t let garland through. so he came in to office with double the vacancies that president obama had when he entered office. the republicans made sure there were vacancies to fill.
senator, how does this all end up? the original sin was the president deciding that he needed to pick somebody off a heritage foundation approved list for the supreme court. there is absolutely nothing that prevents a president from standing with the majority leader and the minority leader and announcing a consensus appointee to the supreme court. they decided not to do that. they are pushing for gorsuch s nomination and a lot of politics led to this along the way that can t be explained by judicial philosophy. good morning, senator. it s rick tyler. in the end, republicans will argue that the supreme court, which is often not part of a political campaign, but it has been because the supreme court decided the outcome of obamacare. so, it was definitely part of the campaign, and trump won. shouldn t trump be able to pick the nominee that aligns ideologically with the right as the democrat, i assume, hillary clinton, would have picked someone that the republicans
let me ask you this: when this started i felt like the folks i talked to on the hill. on the background chats, thought that this would go through. they didn t think the democrats would get enough votes to fill buster. trace for me the trajectory here among you and your colleagues in terms of how you guys at this point. i certainly waited until after the hearings. part of the whole process of the hearings, four days of it, was first to try to find out what his judicial philosophy was, of course, that makes the difference. judicial philosophy that s because our justice has come with life experiences and various perspectives. he would not give us an inkling as to how he would view laws. he just kept saying, he would follow precedent. he s going to the one court that sets precedent. it was not reassuring at all a. we looked at his record and his decisions. hobby lobby, where all of a sudden, very expanded rights for