PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS HE WILL
NOMINATE THE SUCCESSOR FROM A
LIST OF 25 NAMES ALREADY UNDER
CONSIDERATION.
GUY LEWIS JOINS US NOW, HE
IS THE FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA.
THIS IS A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IN
WASHINGTON THAT WILL HAVE AN
IMPACT FOR A LONG TIME.
FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU AGREE WITH
THAT, AND SECONDLY, I WANT TO
ASK YOU ABOUT TWO ISSUES PEOPLE
SAY MAY CHANGE AS A RESULT OF
THIS, ONE IS GAY RIGHTS AND THE
OTHER ABORTION.
YOU AGREE?
I DO.
THIS IS A HUGE SHIFT.
TRULY, I AM NOT WAVING THE FLAG
TOO MUCH BY SAYING THIS IS
GOING TO BE THE TRUMP LEGACY IN
MANY RESPECTS.
THE OPPORTUNITY TO NAME YET A
SECOND, BY ALL ACCOUNTS, VERY
CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE.
ALL OF THE 5-4 DECISIONS,
WHETHER IT IS AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SOME
OF THESE OTHERS THAT ARE BEING
TALKED ABOUT, I WOULD SUGGEST
TO YOU THAT ALL OF THOSE
DECISIONS VERY WELL COULD BE
REVISITED.
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
ALIKE, ALL KINDS OF
POLITICIANS, HAVE BEEN QUICK TO
SPEAK OUT WHETHER THEY APPROVE
OF THIS OR DISAPPROVE.
DO YOU THINK THE SUPREME COURT
HAS BECOME TOO POLITICAL?
OR HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY?
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN POLITICAL
IN THE SENSE OF THE PRESIDENT,
OF COURSE, HAS HIS PREROGATIVE
IN TERMS OF APPOINTMENT.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE NOW, IN THIS
DAY AND AGE, IT IS EXTREME
POLITICAL.
EVERYONE EXPECTS SOMEONE
LIKE TRUMP OR BUSH TO PICK A
MODERATE TO CONSERVATIVE.
EVERYONE EXPECTS OBAMA OR
CLINTON TO PICK A MODERATE TO
LIBERAL.
WHAT WE HAVE LOST, IT SEEMS TO
ME, IS THE MODERATE.
THE MIDDLE GROUND THAT I THINK
MOST OF US LOOK FOR WHEN WE ARE
TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT
AND WRONG IN TERMS OF THE LAW
AND WHAT IT SHOULD LOOK LIKE
AND WHAT IT SHOULD BE.
WE ALREADY KNOW THIS LIST
MADE UP OF 25 OR SO NAMES HAVE
ALREADY BEEN VETTED AND
APPROVED BY CONSERVATIVE
JUDICIAL ORGANIZATIONS.
THEY HAVE THE STAMP OF
APPROVAL.
THESE WOULD NOT BE WISHY-WASHY,
DAVID SOUTER TYPES WHO COULD BE
NAMED TO ONLY BE A LIBERAL WHEN
HE GETS TO THE SUPREME COURT.
A COUPLE OF THESE NAMES ON THE
LIST ARE FROM FLORIDA.
THAT IS RIGHT.
YOU LOOK AT THE LIST, AND FIRST
OF ALL, IT IS AN
EXTRAORDINARILY TALENTED GROUP
OF PEOPLE.
THERE IS NO QUESTION.
I AM GLAD THE PRESIDENT IS
LOOKING TO SOUTH FLORIDA FOR
POTENTIAL CANDIDATES.
FORMER CHIEF JUDGE MARINO, VERY
TALENTED.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT
FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY STAN
MARCUS, WHO WAS ON THE 11th
CIRCUIT, WOULD ALSO BE A GREAT
CANDIDATE.
THESE ARE JUDGES WHO REALLY
HAVE TRIED CASES AND BEEN THERE
AND WOULD BE TERRIFIC.
THEY WOULD GET APPROVED, I
THINK, BY THE SENATE, WHICH MAY
BE A VERY IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATION WHEN THE PRESIDENT
IS HUDDLING WITH HIS TEAM
TRYING TO DECIDE WHO TO PICK.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU,
CONFIRMATION MAY BE AN
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
WE KNOW IN 2016 WHEN
PRESIDENT OBAMA NOMINATED
MERRICK GARLAND, MITCH
McCONNELL, THE MAJORITY LEADER
IN THE SENATE, SAID NOW IS NOT
THE TIME TO HAVE THOSE HEARINGS
BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ELECTION
COMING UP.
HE IS SAYING SOMETHING TOTALLY
DIFFERENT THIS TIME.
DO YOU THINK THAT PRESIDENT
TRUMP, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP COULD NOMINATE
A CONSERVATIVE SOMEBODY WHO --
SOMEBODY MORE MIDDLE OF THE
ROAD?
I THINK WE LOOK AT HIS FIRST
NOMINATION AND SOME OF THE
OTHER NAMES ON THE LIST,
ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HE
INTERVIEWED FOR THE NEIL GORSUCH
NOMINATION WHO DID NOT MAKE THE
FINAL PICK, BUT DID MAKE THE
TOP TWO OR THREE.
THESE ARE VERY, VERY
CONSERVATIVE JUDGES.
ONE OF WHOM, FOR EXAMPLE,
CALLED THE DECISIONS ON ABORTION
AN ABOMINATION.
THESE ARE JUDGES, I THINK,
SEVERAL OF WHOM WILL LOOK AT A
LOT OF THESE 5-4 DECISIONS AND
SAY FORGET IT, AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION, FORGET IT, ABORTION,
FORGET IT, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE,
FORGET IT.
YOU MAY SEE SOME SERIOUS,
SUBSTANTIAL SHIFT IN TERMS OF
THE LAW OVER THE NEXT 20 TO 30
YEARS.
WHAT ABOUT THE TIMING OF
THIS?
IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN
TERMS OF SENATE CONFIRMATION
HEARINGS WHETHER IT IS BEFORE
THE MIDTERMS OR AFTER.
TO ME, THAT IS THE WILL --
ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING
QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW ON THE
TABLE.
THE TIMING AND HOW THIS
CONFIRMATION HEARING, THE
POTENTIAL HEARING WOULD LOOK.
I THINK IT WILL BE NASTY.
I REALLY DO.
I LOOK BACK AT ROBERT BORK,
WHEN HE DID NOT GET IT, WHO WAS
THE NOMINEE?
JUSTICE KENNEDY.
WHEN THOMAS WENT THROUGH, HE
BARELY MADE IT.
BECAUSE IT WAS SO VITRIOLIC,
BOTH SIDES ANGRY WITH EACH OTHER
IN TERMS OF THE NOMINATION.
ARE WE GOING TO RELIVE
SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
I REALLY DO THINK SO.
THE IDEA OF PRECEDENT,
BECAUSE THE COURT LOOKS BACK ON
PAST DECISIONS TO MAKE FUTURE
DECISIONS, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT
THE DIFFERENT AREAS WHERE THEY
COULD REVISIT DECISIONS THAT
HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, ARE THE
SETTLED NOW?
IS IT ROE V WADE THE LAW THE
LAND?
YOU REALLY WOULD THINK.
A PERFECTLY FAIR OBSERVATION,
BUT I WOULD SITE THE EXACT SAME
CASE ON THE UNION ISSUE ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN REQUIRE
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO
CONTRIBUTE TO A UNION, THAT
EXACT SAME CASE WAS DECIDED TO
YEARS AGO, AND THEY DECIDED 4-4
THAT YOU COULD.
THEY LEFT THE DECISION INTACT.
IT CHANGED YESTERDAY BY A 5-4
DECISION THAT NEAR GORSUCH --
NEIL GORSUCH PUT THEM OVER THE
TOP.
YOU CANNOT BE FORCED TO PAY
DUES TO JOIN A UNION, A MAJOR
BLOW TO UNIONS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY.
THAT IS WHAT THE COURT
DECIDED YESTERDAY, AND SOME