and three, he wouldn't talk about any cases that might come before the court. so i asked him what are we supposed to look to, how are we supposed to divine what his judicial philosophy would be? what would he bring to the supreme court? are we to look at his judicial record? are we to look at his writings? in looking at his judicial record i see a pattern that shows he would fall very much in line with the roberts' court and their move inextricably to protect corporate interests over individuals. >> if folks back home could sit in that hearing room with you, what would they say? >> they would very much want to be reassured that when gorsuch told me when he met with me that the federal judiciary and the judges are there to protect minority rights, i think they would want me to make sure that's in fact what his decisions reflect. and i do not find that his decisions reflect that. in fact, he did -- >> i'm sorry. i was going to ask what happens -- >> go ahead, brian. >> how do you process merrick garland in all this? certainly a qualified jurist, someone the republican leader mitch mcconnell said just flatly would not be considered. what do you do about that? >> i think that was a very dark moment in how congress approaches these vacancies. i totally disagree with mitch mcconnell, of course. in fact, some of the people who came out and testified for judge gorsuch said that judge garland was a fantastic jurist and he would have made a wonderful supreme court justice. sadly, that didn't happen, but we are giving judge gorsuch the hearing that judge garland never received from the republicans. >> so assuming you are a no vote along with most if not all of your fellow democrats -- >> brian, i'm not there yet. we still have two more days of hearings. i would like to get some straight answers to the question that i have that have to do with where is he on reproductive rights, a woman's right to choose. i'd like to get into some voting rights issues, union issues. i still have a number of questions that i have for him. >> well, that's an interesting point. is in anything he could say to move you from probable no to perhaps yes? >> stay tuned, brian. >> senator of hawaii, thank you very much, senator, for being with us. >> aloha. >> thanks to the senator for joining us right after her questioning session tonight. coming up after our next break, exactly what it was we witnessed today and how it could influence american law and life for the next half century or more when "the 11th hour" continues. "got a minute? not for me, for you." new aveeno®... ...positively radiant® 60 second in shower facial. works with steam to reveal... ...glowing skin in just one minute. aveeno® "naturally beautiful results®" had you ever met president trump personally? >> not until my interview. >> in that interview did he ever ask you to overrule roe v. wade? >> no. >> what would you have done if he asked? >> senator, i would have walked out the door. >> the so-called president trump litmus test. then candidate trump said he would pick a supreme court nominee that would overturn roe versus wade. one of the most contentious questions came from senator al franken of minnesota late in the day. they were talking about a case about a man who was fired for leaving his broken down tractor-trailer on the side of the road in sub zero temperatures after waiting for help for hours with no working heat. >> it is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. that's absurd. now, i had a career in identifying absurdity. [ laughter ] and i know it when i see it, and it makes me, you know -- it makes me question your judgment. >> now, in what amounts to a public radio takeover over our unabashedly commercial cable newscast tonight, we are happy to welcome back npr's correspondent nina totenberg. charlie sykes remains with us here in new york. nina, i know how tired you are. you were on as many hours as we were today. having said that, what one thing did you learn about this nominee that you didn't know about him or his jurisprudence coming into today? >> even though judge gorsuch tried studiously not to commit himself to anything or stay away from any hints, i really thought by his choice of what he would answer and what he didn't answer and the way he answered things that the indications that he is in fact far more conservative than i had thought. now, i have been known to be wrong, and this could be one of those, oh, very rare occasions, but it really did sound that way to me. and i was sitting with a couple of other supreme court observer types who had sort of the same impression. >> now, is there anything specifically that led you to that, because you and i talked around the midday mark about whether or not he was an ideologue, about someone like him changing over time with the court? >> i don't know about changing, and i'm loathe to call somebody an ideologue just because he's a conservative, but i would put him on the fairly far right of this court, and this is already a quite conservative court. just to give you an example, he was asked about his views on whether there's a right of privacy. he said, yes, i do think there's a right of privacy. now in every past hearing where that has come up that is followed by a discussion of reproductive rights and how far they go. instead what he said he meant by right of privacy -- and these were the subjects he chose -- were the right to be free from warrantless arch and seizure, the fourth amendment, the right to worship privately, and the right -- i'm feeling like governor perry. i just lost the third one. it's been a long day, but none of them had anything to do -- the department of commerce. and none of them had anything to do with the right of privacy in any sphere of sexuality or birth control or abortion that matter. >> nina, at 11:41 east coast time, everything is forgiven. charlie sykes, what about the democrats? they're asking what about our guy merrick garland. they're watching republicans paint this as a one for one swap for scalia, and what about the government argument that no one should be seated as appointed by the administration under investigation. >> chuck schumer said the hearing should be suspended until the russian investigation. i think the russian investigation goes ahead. that's ridiculous. look judge gorsuch put in a very, very impressive performance and yesterday. if what we saw is what the best the democrats have, i think they need to go back and say, do we want to fight on this mountain? are we going to go all the way? are we going to force the republicans to invoke the nuclear option? because i had a very different reaction to his testimony today. judge gorsuch is not an ideologue. he is a judge, and i think his reputation among liberals and conservatives is someone of incredible integrity that shows judicial restraint. they're not all from the same, you know, mold. i do think that his skepticism about executive power, his willingness to break with some of those orthodoxies, ought to give some people on the democrats pause. because if he goes down, what makes them think the next guy up is not going to be much, much, much worse? >> nina, it was interesting to hear what people were saying about him during the day. one person said no one person says gosh that many times in a lifetime. one person said every line he delivered sounded like he was recording them for an audio book. he does get credit for going there for president trump's attack on federal judges. >> especially when you consider that sean spicer then tweeted that he didn't say anything about trump, that he was only speaking broadly. i agree with charlie. i think this was a first rate performance. i think the nominee sounded very practiced, and i've seen more charming people in front of the judiciary committee up for the supreme court, and i've seen less charming people, but he was a very able witness. you know, you have something in television called -- i can't even remember that, but it's basically the likability scale. >> q score, i think. >> yes, the q score. i don't know where he felt his q score was, but he did very well as a witness. and god, can you imagine being up there for 11-plus hours? they give you a half an hour for lunch and about every three hours they let you go to the undescribed room that everybody knows you're going to. senator grassley makes very clear that you're going to. it is an endurance test. he'll be back at it tomorrow. i'm not sure it will be as long tomorrow as it was today, but i'm sure it will be at least eight hours. i saw him at one point this evening pop a pill. i assume it was a tylenol or something like that to get through the last two hours of his testimony. >> that doesn't account for you and me getting over the finish line tonight. nina totenberg who we spoke to 12 hours ago, thank you for staying up late with us. charlie sykes, thank you as always for visiting us in new york and staying up late with us. another break for us. coming up, the stock market has been on a bull run straight up through the trump presidency until today. we'll look at what might have caused this stumble when "the 11th hour" chooses to continue tonight. ♪ ♪ it's spring, and we can't wait to open our sheds and get working on our yards. scotts and miracle-gro are here to help. we make it easy to grow thick, healthy lawns, spectacular plants, and bountiful flowers. because when spring starts right, the months that follow stay perfect. load up your shed with scotts and miracle-gro. it's time to get outside. ♪ ♪ this afternoon the stock market has been off as much as 200 points on the dow. some commentators on wall street are suggesting that's because traders are starting to sense a lack of progress in the trump agenda. does the president believe that today's dip in the dow is a result of his performance as president of the united states? >> well, i think to look at any one day is nothing that we've ever -- we've always cautioned. i think overall it trends to be up tremendously. you probably know better than anybody in terms of what you guys cover that you can't look at one indices and say that is the benchmark of an entire economy. >> sean spicer there being asked about the market's in today's briefing because of these numbers. dow jones closing at 20668. what do we make of this now? joining us is our own stephanie rule who before joining msnbc covered business at bloomberg, before that was a veteran of the banking world. okay, stephanie, what's going on? >> when you hear sean spicer say, well, you know you can't look at one number, you also can't talk out of your both sides of your mouth. this is a story about creditability and promises. the market has gone up 13% since president trump won the election, and it is based on promises. those pro-business policies, the fact that he wants to deregulate, the big infrastructure spend, and cut taxes. that has the market super charged and moving forward, but think about the last 24 hours. president trump is still doubling down, sticking to his guns on the wiretap claims. when you saw james comey yesterday say that is not the case, president trump is saying russia continues to be a ruse and we've watched that tale be woven yesterday. to hear sean spicer yesterday say paul manafort limited role, not really involved in the game, the market remembers. the market needs to believe the person who's made these promises is someone who can fulfill them, but today the reason we really saw the market go down almost 250 points is about health care reform. the fact that the president was up there today speaking to republican leadership selling, selling that bill and the message really being you better vote with me or you're not going to get elected in 2018, we're not seeing specific policies, so the market is starting to say if this guy can't deliver on thursday, then what we're waiting for which are taxes, infrastructure, deregulation, why would we believe that's to come. so we're seeing confidence start to pull back. >> so no pun intended, it really is in part a value judgment about a guy who can't pull back what he said on twitter, can't say he was wrong, can't say it was ill considered, and all the other pieces you just detailed. >> there is no god to the market. for the markets, it's all about provability. does the market care when rex tillerson says i'm not really a media guy? the market doesn't care about that. the market is saying what is the likelihood that president trump is going to be able to fulfill the promises that matter to us. and the more we're seeing the president double down on things that don't matter or don't make sense like the wiretapping or health care, it's unclear if that thing is going to make its way through. then the market is suddenly saying promises. maybe we have gone too far. >> i realize you're not white house chief of staff, stephanie. what happens if they decide to somehow use a parliamentary maneuver, take a test vote, push it off to friday. what happens if this goes down? this is such a centerpiece. repeal and replace is something we all repeat in our sleep. >> from the market's perspective, it's not about how the market feels about health care reform. it's about is this a president who ran on "art of the deal," i'm the guy who gets things done. it's not to say the market couldn't use a little bit of a pullback. we've seen things really frothy. some might look at this as a buying opportunity. whether it is thursday, whether it gets pushed off a week or so, the question is will it get done. it is not make or break for the market on thursday. but it is make or break for is this a guy that is going to get things down. health care is important to the market. it has investors saying why was replace and repeal the first thing you did when taxes or infrastructure could have been more reasonable, but this is the hand they're dealt. >> your old colleagues in the investment banking world, the men and women who populate wall street and the rest of new york, like to see familiar faces on the president's team. are there enough? do they see confidence there? >> you know, it's not about new york or wall street saying, wow, filled with goldman sachs again. that was as surprising to wall street as anyone. no one from the industry would have predicted just a couple years ago goldman sachs was considered the vampire squid. wall street persona non grata in the house of elizabeth warren. no one would have predicted this, but when they look at the white house, nobody can predict what's going to come. is it the house of jared and ivanka or steve bannon and reince priebus? investors aren't getting into that vortex of what goes down in the white house. they want a clear road and they want to be able to move ahead and they love the idea of less regulation. they love the idea of tax reform. the question is are they going to get it. >> from our washington bureau tonight inexplicably with more energy than any of us, stephanie rule. she is back on the area tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time with live coverage of day three of the supreme court hearings. another break for us. coming up, a part of american history not seen until today when "the 11th hour" continues. ♪ if you've got a life, you gotta swiffer last thing before we go here tonight, paging michael. what experts are calling the first ever color film of the white house. it's existence unknown until now. this dates back to the hoover administration before the days of fdr. first lady lou hoover's home videos were thought to be recorded in black and white, but turns out they were shot on primitive color film. after a fire on christmas eve, which gutted much of the west wing. herbert hoover can be seen wearing a tan and brown v neck playing a game created by the president's physician involving a six-pound medicine ball along with assorted family friends and cabinet members. this is what passed for physical fitness for the 27th president, and he played it every day rain or shine. among the video released today in honor of what would have been first lady lou hoover's 143rd birthday, film of the 1930 easter festivities on the white house lawn along the white house garden at that time back in the salad days before kale became a thing. that is our broadcast for tonight. thank you for being here with us. good night from all of us from new york. tonight on "all in" -- >> they wanted to hurt our democracy, hurt her, help him. >> a cloud around the white house gets thicker. >> there's been discussion of paul manafort who played a very limited role. >> new reports of money laundering and donald trump's campaign manager. >> paul manafort has done an amazing job. >> tonight, what we're learning about paul manafort as democrats call for him to testify. >> that's what he said, i -- that's what i -- that's obviously what our position is. >> plus, 2016 flashback, what we now know about how the fbi helped tip the election to trump. >> experts are now saying that they are -- the russians are releasing these e-mails for the purpose of actually helping donald trump. >> then, two days from the trumpcare vote -- >> we had a great meeting and i think we're going to get a winner vote. >> as the president starts

Related Keywords

United States , Minnesota , New York , Russia , Washington , Hawaii , Russian , Russians , American , Chuck Schumer , Herbert Hoover , Roe V Wade , Elizabeth Warren , Al Franken , Nina Totenberg , Lou Hoover , Rex Tillerson , Mitch Mcconnell , Charlie Sykes , James Comey , Sean Spicer , Steve Bannon , Reince Priebus ,