tv Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats Delay Vote on Gorsuch Nomination CSPAN March 27, 2017 9:15pm-9:31pm EDT
>> here is an article from politico. senate democrats delay vote on gorsuch nomination. democrats pushed a key vote for nominee neil gorsuch into next week, setting in motion a major showdown over his confirmation. the delay was expected, writes politico. any member of the committee could ask for nomination to be held over one week. the committee will vote for the nomination on april 3, with the gop leaders hoping to get gorsuch confirmed before the recess on april 8. you can see judiciary committee ranking member dianne feinstein on your screen. she and chuck grassley held a
meeting on the nomination. >> good morning, everybody. thank you for being here. today we have three exceptional nominees on the agenda. neil gorsuch to be associate justice of the supreme court, rod rosenstein, assigned to be deputy attorney general, rachel brand to be associate attorney general. all three of these are on the agenda for the first time. i understand the minority would like to hold them over. any member may hold over a nomination under the rules on the agenda the first time they are on the agenda.
all three nominations will be .eld over for one week last week, the committee held a hearing to consider judge gorsuch's nomination. starting, wearing knew how qualified the judge is. his resume speaks for itself. last week we got to see up close how thoughtful, how articulate and humble he is. he is clearly deeply committed to being fair and impartial as a judge and is willing -- is not willing to copper mice thependence to win votes in senate. i will have more to say next week when we debate his nominee -- nomination. i want to thank my colleagues for making less week's hearing run smoothly. almost everybody stayed within their time period and everyone
was courteous. thank you, senator feinstein, for the hard work and coordination you put in to get us through those four days last week. thanks verystein: much. i'm going to say informally a couple of things i think have affected this. i am not sure the majority understands, or if they do understand, cares. i'm going to begin as i did once before, talk about what happened whenpast year, and that judge scalia has the way, it was on february 13 of the year. the president nominated someone who was very qualified, and that
individual could not get a hearing, a meeting or be considered. we look back in history, and i have heard a lot said about it, but i would like to put in the record the list of justices confirmed in presidential election years before the election. in fact, there were 14. after the election, there were another three. i would just quickly like to go over it. president washington made to appointments. 1796, his final year. madedent johnson in 1804, one. president jefferson, jackson, cleveland made two, harrison made one, taft made one, wilson made to, hoover made one, roosevelt made one and reagan made one.
three justices were nominated and confirmed after the election in a presidential election year. one was abraham lincoln's in december of 1864. the second was ward hunt, president ulysses s grant in december of 1872. the third was william burnham in 1880.esident hayes if one is going to look at precedent, one has to look at this piece of paper and say, maybe this is substantial president when 14 presidents have made appointments in the final years of the presidency, and an additional three even after the election takes place. i think what has been used is a statement that joe biden made on the floor, which i have read. that statement does not come
close to what this piece of paper does. you can imagine perhaps, on our side, the depth of feeling that came about during this period of and april,march there was plenty of time to handle a nominee. and yet the decision was made that president obama would be , when 17s fourth year former presidents were not. that is a fact. the other thing i want to something that in the six appointments i have sat on, i find without history, and that is the use of dark money here it -- of dark money in this nomination process and against judge garland.
it has been reported that $7 million of dark money was spent to sully judge garland. and that $10 million of dark money was spent to promote neil gorsuch. that is dark money. we do not know where it came from or how much was given. we don't know whether one individual put in all $10 million. the only thing i know is that the nra put in $1 million. now, that sends a loud signal to me. majority, and i say this respectfully, needs to consider these things. that then when you have a nominee who will not answer a specific question -- i remember when the question was asked about plessy versus ferguson and
the nominee said yes, it is a dark stain on america's history. i think it was senator blumenthal that asked, do you support brown versus board of education, and he would not say. was the votetion fairnessof schools and and desegregation. and anybody that is going to be on the supreme court, it seems to me, has to say yes, i supported it. when i look back and we look back at other nominees, republican nominees who would say when a verdict was passed, yes, i support that. so i just want to say these three things, more or less setting the table for at least the way this senator feels about
this. that come in you are eminently fair and you know what i think about you because i say it everywhere and a very much appreciate your leadership and i respect it. puts thisd that, this side in my view, in a terrible position. when you have this kind of dark money, you have reportedly 10 states targeted, and millions situation ieates a think for a nominee that the people who spend this money by the tens of millions ought to think twice about that it could be counterproductive. i needed to say that mr. chairman, and i thank you. thank you.ssley:
that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. you can also watch online at c-span.org or listen on the radio app. later, health committee considers legislation that would require the treasury secretary to provide president trump's tax returns and other financial information from 2006-.16. that is 4:00 p.m. eastern, also on c-span3. >> in case you missed it, the national coordinator for child exportation prevention during the obama administration. >> i used to think the hardest thing i would have to do is look into the eyes of a child and listen to her story about being abused. i was wrong. the hardest thing i ever had to do was watch their abuse, sometimes still photos, sometimes video, sometimes with sound. and even wrenching
now, impossible to forget. secretary nominee sonny purdue. >> they are struggling to be profitable and hold on. even the best farmers are often times not able to produce the best product with the capabilities may have. i think trade is the answer. >> in this nbc's chris matthews. >> the truth is contained in hard news. contains the politicians. that is what stops the overreach and power. that is what the country takes seriously and what matters at this hour, this week, this time in our lives. >> reform whichof tax are about creating middle income tax cuts, about creating personal tax implication and
making u.s. businesses competitive where we have a very high business tax rate. we are able to take the tax code and redesign things. ian read: pfizer ceo on pharmaceutical cost. >> we do need to reform the health care, the way it is delivered and the consequences will be re-patients. and scott pruitt on environmental policy. >> there are some exciting things going on with respect to clean coal technology and in the nuclear space. most of that is happening in europe because of the disincentives we put into place in this country with respect to nuclear. if you hear about these environmental concerns, nuclear should be in the next. these are available at c-span.org y