California's 'foreclosure capital' to give away $500 a month to residents in experimental welfare program

Stockton, California is set to become the first city in the nation to embark on an experiment of Universal Basic Income, paying 100 residents $500 a month without any conditions.
The program’s purpose is to eventually ensure that no one in the city of 300,000 people lives in poverty. The receivers of the cash will be able to spend the money on anything they want without any strings attached.
It will launch by 2019 and the 100 fortunate residents will receive the cash for a full 18-months as part of its testing phase before deciding whether to roll it across whole Stockton.
The city, which was once known as America's foreclosure capital, has recently fallen on hard times, with one-in-four residents living below the poverty line and the median household income nearly $8,000 lesser than the national median.
The city also racked up millions in debt from expensive development projects that led to the city’s bankruptcy in 2012.
“We’ve overspent on things like arenas and marinas and things of that sort to try to lure in tourism and dollars that way,” said Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs.
Luckily, the experimental program won’t deplete the city’s coffers as it benefits from financial backing by wealthy Silicon Valley moguls. One of those backers is Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, whose the Economic Security Project contributed $1 million to the project.
“It is such a fundamental idea behind America that if you work hard, you can get ahead, and you certainly don't live in poverty. But that isn't true today, and it hasn't been true in the country for decades,” Hughes told CNN.
“I believe that unless we make significant changes today, the income inequality in our country will continue to grow and call into question the very nature of our social contract.”
Other Silicon Valley elites have also endorsed the idea, though mostly in rhetoric. “Universal income will be necessary over time if AI takes over most human jobs,” Business magnate Elon Musk wrote in a tweet last month.
“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas,” Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg said in May 2017 Harvard commencement speech.
The idea of Universal Basic Income isn’t new, with some European countries adopting some form of it. In Finland, 2,000 unemployed working-age people were given 560 Euros per month. The program, however, came to an abrupt end in April after the Finnish government decided not to extend the funding to the program, The Guardian reported.
In the U.S., the idea remains fairly new but it’s gaining traction in politically liberal areas in the nation such as Hawaii and the San Francisco Bay area.
In Oakland, California, Y Combinator, a startup incubator, is giving out $1,500 a month to randomly selected residents. It’s expected the money will soon be distributed to 100 recipients with a prospect of expanding the program to 1,000 people who will receive $1,000 monthly.

Kavanaugh's nomination leaves red state Democrats with dilemma of a lifetime – betray their party or voters?

On Monday evening, President Trump nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, leaving red state Democratic Senators with the dilemma of a lifetime as they approach Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing: betray Chuck Schumer or betray the voters that put them there.
Any legal expert will tell you that Kavanaugh is deserving of resounding confirmation. In fact, Liberal Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, called President Trump’s entire 25-person Supreme Court nominee list “distinguished” and “impressive.” Monday night,  in a piece entitled “A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh,” Amar wrote: “I strongly supported Hillary Clinton… [but] it is hard to name anyone with judicial credential as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh.” thus giving red state Democrats no valid reason to oppose him.
The Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to more than a dozen of Kavanaugh’s decisions, and more than 210 judges nationwide have cited his most popular opinions.  Perhaps most qualifying of all, though, is this singular sentence written by Kavanaugh: “[R]ead the words of the statute as written.  Read the text of the Constitution as written… Don’t make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the Constitution.”
This incontrovertible statement is precisely the role of a judge and precisely the reason not a single Democrat should oppose the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, a Constitution-abiding judge with a proven track record.

As November approaches, it should come as no surprise that these vulnerable red state Democrats are now engaging in some fancy political footwork as they desperately try to convince their constituents that they are Trump allies, despite their proven track record of opposing him.

If not out of principle, red state Democrats ought to vote for Kavanaugh based on political fate.
Ten Democratic senators up for reelection this November hail from states that President Trump won, and in many of them commandingly so.
President Trump won Claire McCaskill’s state of Missouri by 19 points; Joe Donnelly’s Indiana by 19 points; Jon Tester’s Montana by 21 points; Heidi Heitkamp’s North Dakota by 36 points; and Joe Manchin’s West Virginia by an eye-opening 42 points.
In each of these states, voters sent an unmistakable message to their elected officials: We support President Trump and his agenda.  And yet, in each of these states, their senators talk like Donald Trump – but vote like Chuck Schumer.
As November approaches, it should come as no surprise that these vulnerable red state Democrats are now engaging in some fancy political footwork as they desperately try to convince their constituents that they are Trump allies, despite their proven track record of opposing him.
With a vacancy on the Supreme Court and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planning a Senate confirmation vote this fall, these faux Trump-supporting Democratic senators now have the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and vote for President Trump’s highly qualified nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.
Opposing Kavanaugh is fraught with political risks. Voting against Kavanaugh will undoubtedly open Democrats up to attacks from Republican opponents – attacks like those we’ve already seen in Missouri, where Republican opponent Josh Hawley calls out Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill in a new ad over the upcoming Supreme Court vote.
As a confirmation vote on Kavanaugh approaches, every red state Democrat will be forced to answer the following question: are you Trump allies in word or in action?
Senator Jon Tester recently took out a full page ad in 14 Montana newspapers thanking President Trump and touting “Jon’s 16 bills signed into law by President Trump” (this despite his vote against tax cuts and against Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch).
Will Jon Tester’s words be followed by action?
Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia renounced his support for Hillary Clinton and said he would be “open” to voting for Trump in 2020.
Will Joe Manchin’s words be followed by action?
Senator Joe Donnelly brags that he voted with Trump more than every other Democratic senator with just two exceptions (keep in mind they all voted against tax cuts and permitted the government to shut down).
Will Joe Donnelly’s words be followed by action?
Time will tell.
If these vulnerable Democrats do vote for Kavanaugh, they are sure to provoke the ire of the Democratic leadership. Asked about red state Democrats losing elections because of their votes against the nominee, Minority Whip Dick Durbin flatly stated: “They understand it’s an historic decision.  It’s about more than the next election.”
In essence, Durbin is perversely suggesting that these red state Democrats put party before people – the very people that made them United States Senators.
Ten Senate Democrats – Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Bill Nelson, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Tammy Baldwin, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester, Joe Manchin, and Joe Donnelly – will have to make the choice to stand with Chuck Schumer or to stand with the people of their great states.
People over party should be the easy answer.
Kayleigh McEnany is the National Spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. She has a J.D. from Harvard Law School and BSFS from Georgetown School of Foreign Service. She also studied at Oxford University, St. Edmund Hall. Kayleigh is the author of the book "The New American Revolution: The Making of a Populist Movement."

Kavanaugh nod touches off Supreme Court confirmation battle; Dems warn of 'deaths of countless women'

President Trump's nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has set the stage for a bruising confirmation battle, as Senate Democrats and liberal groups vowed to resist what could be a dramatic and long-lasting rightward shift on the Supreme Court.
Within seconds of Trump's announcement in the White House Monday night, the far-left political action committee Democracy for America called Kavanaugh, 53, a "reactionary ideologue" whose confirmation would "directly lead to the deaths of countless women with the dismantling of abortion rights."
And in a statement, the Women's March said ominously: "Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States."
"Stripping a woman’s ability to make decisions about her own body is state violence," the group continued. "We cannot let this stand. We will raise our voices and take to the streets."
In an embarrassing blunder, though, the Women's March statement began: "In response to Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court" -- indicating that the group didn't expect to have to change its pre-written press release much on Monday night.

“Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States."
- Women's March statement

WATCH: HEAVY LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE AT SUPREME COURT AS PROTESTERS SPAR
The mood outside the Supreme Court soured quickly throughout the evening, as protesters screamed and jostled in a markedly hostile atmosphere after Trump announced his selection.
Kavanaugh, who is Catholic and formerly served as a law clerk for Kennedy, has long said he would broadly respect legal precedent, including Roe v. Wade. In his time in the Bush White House and his twelve-year stint on the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh has variously alarmed both pro-life and pro-choice advocates.
PELOSI VOWS TO 'AVENGE OBAMA' IN SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN
Top Senate Democrats, who have long said they would not seriously consider any of the candidates Trump was considering, also vowed to fight Kavanaugh, citing what they called an anti-abortion record.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called for killing the nomination.
"If we can successfully block this nomination, it could lead to a more independent, moderate selection that both parties could support," Schumer said.
He continued: "In selecting Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, President Trump has put reproductive rights and freedoms and health care protections for millions of Americans on the judicial chopping block."
All eyes Monday night were on moderate Republicans including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, as well as several red-state Democrats, including West Virginia's Joe Manchin, North Dakota's Heidi Heitkamp and Indiana's Joe Donnelly.
WATCH: WHO IS BRETT KAVANAUGH, TRUMP'S PICK TO REPLACE JUSTICE KENNEDY?
Their votes could prove decisive in the upcoming nomination decision, because Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate. One prominent Republican, John McCain, is expected to be unable to vote because of his ongoing battle with brain cancer. Vice President Mike Pence could break a 50-50 tie in the Senate.
That means Republicans can't afford to lose any Republican votes unless they also pick off at least one Democratic senator.
In a statement, Collins -- who has vowed not to vote for a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade -- said only that she would scrutinize Kavanaugh carefully.
"Judge Kavanaugh has impressive credentials and extensive experience, having served more than a decade on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals," Collins said. "I will conduct a careful, thorough vetting of the President’s nominee to the Supreme Court."
Donnelly, a Democrat holding a vulnerable seat in red Indiana, echoed that assessment.
"I will take the same approach as I have previously for a Supreme Court vacancy," Donnelly said. "Following the president’s announcement, I will carefully review and consider the record and qualifications of Judge Brett Kavanaugh."
Kavanaugh's lengthy insider D.C. record -- from his tenure on the bench, as well as his work in the Bush White House and on the Kenneth Starr report that led to Bill Clinton's impeachment -- threatened to delay the confirmation process amid lawmakers' promises to vet the new nominee.
Pro-choice advocates will likely focus on Kavanaugh's decisions in cases like Priests for Life v. HHS, in which Kavanaugh wrote a dissent arguing that ObamaCare's contraceptive coverage requirements put undue burdens on some religious beliefs.
They are also expected to emphasize Garza v. Hargan, a recent case in which Kavanaugh dissented from a ruling that the Trump administration should permit an illegal immigrant in federal custody to have an abortion. Kavanaugh's dissent angered both sides of the abortion debate, because while Kavanaugh did not endorse the immigrant's right to an abortion, his dissent also did not specifically deny her that right in all cases.
Meanwhile, pro-gun rights advocates might find comfort in Kavanaugh's dissent in the landmark Heller case, when it was before the D.C. Circuit. Kavanaugh argued that a D.C. ordinance unconstitutionally infringed on residents' right to own semi-automatic weapons by requiring them to keep them unloaded and unassembled, or bound by a trigger lock.
The Supreme Court eventually took the case and struck down the ordinance, and held that the Second Amendment protects the possession of semi-automatic weapons for purposes unrelated to militia use.
Despite Kavanaugh's paper trail, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday that she expected Kavanaugh to be confirmed by Oct. 1.
But despite that optimistic claim, top Republicans predicted an epic tussle in the days ahead.
Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he was bracing for "rough, tough, down in the dirt, ear-pulling, nose-biting fight."
For now, the next steps in the whirlwind process will be pleasantries. On Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence and White House counsel Don McGahn will escort Kavanaugh to Capitol Hill.
They will then put him in the care of the so-called "sherpa," former Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, who will guide Kavanaugh through the nomination process, including his meetings with senators.

Border Wall Cartoons

Feds ask US-Mexico border property owners to survey their land, but many remain skeptical

November 13, 2016: A U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent passes along a section of border wall in Hidalgo, Texas.  (AP)

Some property owners along the U.S.-Mexico border in South Texas said they have received letters from the federal government asking to review their land for the border wall construction.
Residents in the town of Escobares received notices a few weeks ago from the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), asking for the permission to survey their land, KENS-TV reported.
Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar, a representative in the area, said there have been over 200 of such requests made in Starr and Hidalgo counties, according to federal officials.
The town Mayor Noel Escobar was among those who received the letter, but he wasn’t eager to use the opportunity. “I walk out the back door and what I’m going to see is a 30-foot fence,” Escobar said.

“I walk out the back door and what I’m going to see is a 30-foot fence."
- Mayor Noel Escobar of the City of Escobares

Rio Grande City School District board president Daniel Garcia said the district received such request as well back in May, which claimed district property is being considered for “tactical infrastructure, such as a border wall.”
The school board last month approved a request from the CBP to come to the property for survey and site assessment.
The land that the federal government took interest in isn’t being used by the district, but Garcia said he would have voted against the move to allow the site assessment if he had known it could be used for the border wall.
“When we voted for it, it was not for any specific reason. They just wanted to come in and survey the property,” Garcia told KENS-TV.

“There’s no use for me to sell the land if I’m not going to get much from it."
- Roma resident Felix Rodriguez

Earlier this year, Felix Rodriguez, a resident in Roma, Texas, said he was visited a federal government employee who offered him $300 for a portion of his 500-square-foot property that would be used for the border wall – an offer that was too low in his view.
“There’s no use for me to sell the land if I’m not going to get much from it,” Rodriguez said, adding that he wants at least $1,500 for the land.

Former Clinton aide shares contact information of bookstore Steve Bannon was accosted in

March 10, 2018: Former White House strategist Steve Bannon addresses members of the National Front party at the party congress in the northern French city of Lille.  (AP)

Former longtime Hillary Clinton aide Philippe Reines on Saturday posted the contact information of a Virginia bookstore whose owner called the police on a customer who harassed former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.
The owner of Black Swan Books in Richmond, Nick Cooke, alerted 911 after a woman confronted Bannon and reportedly called him a “piece of trash.”
The store owner said the woman began accosting the former White House strategist out of nowhere and stopped only after he called the police. No officers arrived to the scene as the call was shortly cancelled.

Philippe Reines posted the contact information of the bookstore where Steve Bannon was confronted.  (Twitter)

“Steve Bannon was simply standing, looking at books, minding his own business. I asked her to leave, and she wouldn’t. And I said, ‘I’m going to call the police if you don’t,’ and I went to call the police and she left. And that’s the end of the story,” Cooke told the Richmond Dispatch.
Some criticized Cooke for not letting people confront Bannon, with former Clinton aide posting contact information of the bookstore, potentially encouraging and exposing the business to harassment.
Social media users slammed Reines for sharing the information, calling it “irresponsible” and “one step too far”.
“If there's a confrontation in your store, you call the police so that it either stops the confrontation from escalating or it gets something with authority to make sure it ends,” wrote one Twitter user. “That you are calling for a public beatdown of this place by posting all of their info is disgraceful.”

Former Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines.  (AP)

Reines defended his tweet that gathered over seven thousand interactions, insisting he’s not “encouraging any behavior” by sharing the information.
“I’m providing a service to the public by providing the contact information the bookstore posted on their website - presumably with the hope of being contacted. I presented facts without encouraging any behavior,” he tweeted. “I’d point out through it’s possible this woman stopped a book burning.”
The confrontation with Bannon comes weeks a number of Trump administration officials were snubbed in public, including White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders who was declined service at a Lexington restaurant and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen who was accosted by socialist protesters at a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C.

How Michael Cohen decided to send Trump a carefully calibrated message

Michael Cohen has distanced himself from President Trump in recent weeks.  (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)

It's quite obvious that Michael Cohen was sending a sharp message when he sat down with ABC's George Stephanopoulos.
What is less apparent is how deliberate and carefully crafted his words were, especially on subjects that don't directly involve him, and his strategy toward the intended recipient: President Trump.
Based on my reporting, the president's former personal lawyer was not only issuing a declaration of independence from his longtime boss, he was telling the world that he doesn't agree with some of Trump’s core positions.
And the phrases were carefully rehearsed as a finger-in-the-eye shot at Trump, not just to calmly convey that he will not be a "punching bag" or cast as a "villain" as "part of anyone's defense strategy."
Cohen has dual goals. Having become a key figure in a federal investigation, he is trying to better position himself to make a deal if in fact he winds up facing criminal charges. And he is taking the first step toward restoring his battered reputation in the court of public opinion.
On a personal level, I'm told, Cohen at times has been angry and depressed over being drawn into the Robert Mueller probe because of his past service to Trump. But he has felt relieved since the ABC sitdown made headlines, believing that he can redeem himself only if he is not viewed as a blind Trump supporter.
Cohen is not proud of some of what he's done for Trump in the past, I'm told, but made his judgments at the time and believes some of the current criticism is based on 20/20 hindsight.
The New York lawyer, often dubbed Trump's "fixer," recently parted company with his attorneys and hired former prosecutor Guy Petrillo and former Clinton White House lawyer Lanny Davis.
One major clue to the interview, based on my reporting, is in Cohen's answers involving the president's ongoing battles with law-enforcement officials and the intelligence community, and even his foreign policy.
These are far afield from the subjects that Cohen has generally discussed in the past.
Cohen took a firm stance on Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, a conclusion that the president has never fully embraced.
"I repudiate Russia's or any other foreign government's attempt to interfere or meddle in our democratic process," he said. Breaking with Trump, Cohen said that "I respect our nation's intelligence agencies" and their "unanimous conclusions" about Moscow's role. In perhaps the most direct challenge to Trump, who will meet with the Russian leader this month, he declared: "Simply accepting the denial of Mr. Putin is unsustainable."
As part of his distancing strategy, Cohen even took on the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner and a Russian lawyer said to be offering dirt on Hillary Clinton. Cohen called that a "mistake" and "poor judgment" by those members of the Trump camp.
In declining to criticize Mueller's Russia probe, Cohen explicitly rejected Trump's favorite phrase for discrediting the special counsel and his operation: "I don't like the term witch hunt."
Cohen has said before that the FBI agents who raided his home and hotel room – in what the president termed "an attack on our country" — acted professionally. With Stephanopoulos, he added: "I don't agree with those who demonize or vilify the FBI. I respect the FBI as an institution, as well as their agents."
Once a registered Democrat, Cohen views the president as having made inaccurate statements about the FBI and intelligence officials, and this has contributed to his sense of alienation and the belief that his onetime patron has changed. Those sentiments are inextricably tied to Cohen's more personal sense of disappointment that he feels abandoned by Trump.
Cohen declined in the interview to answer questions, on his lawyers' advice, about the $130,000 payment he made in the campaign's final weeks to porn actress Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about what she alleges was a 2006 affair with Trump. Cohen may have some legal exposure stemming from the hush money, for which he was reimbursed by Trump.
Such questions, which would obviously be part of any interview, were the reason that Cohen decided to speak to the "Good Morning America" co-anchor on the record but off camera. Cohen and his team did not want viral video clips of him repeatedly refusing to answer questions.
Journalists constantly speculate about whether Cohen will flip, by deciding to testify against Trump in exchange for immunity. That question cannot be answered at the moment because his lawyers have no way of knowing what charges, if any, he may face. And while Cohen could undoubtedly offer embarrassing details about the celebrity businessman he served, it is far from clear that he is sitting on any legally damaging information.
Rudy Giuliani, Trump's lawyer, took a noticeably supportive tone toward Cohen yesterday, saying he should cooperate with prosecutors. "I'm hoping that Michael is able to clear himself because I think what was done to him was really unfair ... I have no concerns that Michael Cohen is going to do anything but tell the truth," the former New York mayor told Stephanopoulos on "This Week."
Some media chatter suggests that Cohen made his move in hopes of obtaining an eventual pardon from the president. But I'm told that he would be following a make-nice approach, rather than a confrontational one, if that was his goal.
Michael Cohen once famously said he would take a bullet for Donald Trump. If he was trying to alert the president and his legal team that the offer no longer stands, he succeeded.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Trump teases Supreme Court pick, vows 'exceptional person will be chosen'

President Trump said Sunday that he was "close to making a decision" about who he would nominate to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy a little more than 24 hours before he was scheduled to announce his choice in a primetime address Monday.
"I'm very close to making a final decision. And I believe this person will do a great job," Trump told reports as he left for Washington from a weekend at his New Jersey golf club.
When asked how many people were being considered, the president said: "Let's say it's the four people ... they're excellent, every one. You can't go wrong." Trump added that he would make his final decision "tonight or tomorrow sometime by 12 o'clock and we're all gonna be meeting at nine o'clock."
Later Sunday, Trump tweeted that he was "[l]ooking forward to announcing my final decision on the United States Supreme Court Justice at 9:00pmE tomorrow night at the @WhiteHouse. An exceptional person will be chosen!"
The Trump administration has been preparing information materials on four potential nominees: appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, and Thomas Hardiman.
Sources who talked to Trump Sunday morning tell Fox News that the president's top two choices are Kavanaugh and Hardiman, though a GOP source said late Sunday that Barrett still has a good chance of being the pick.
Hardiman was the runner-up when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia last year. He also has a personal connection to the president, having served with Trump's sister on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.
Each possible choice must be balanced against political realities -- with Republicans holding a razor-thin majority in the Senate and Democratic leaders imploring their colleagues to stand firm against any Trump nomination.
Some conservatives have expressed concerns about Kavanaugh — a longtime judge and former clerk for Kennedy — questioning his commitment to social issues like abortion and noting his time serving under President George W. Bush as evidence he is a more establishment choice. But his supporters cite his experience and wide range of legal opinions. Barrett has excited social conservatives since she was questioned about her Roman Catholic faith in her nomination hearings last year, but her brief time on the bench has raised questions.
Sources tell Fox News that Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has expressed concerns about Barrett to the White House. The Trump administration believes she would ultimately vote to confirm Barrett, but she does not want to be boxed in. Trump also has to decide if he wants a nominee that will propel abortion to the forefront of the confirmation battle. Collins has previously said a nominee who opposes Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide, would be "unacceptable."
Top Republican senators said Sunday that they were confident that any of the four finalists could get confirmed by their colleagues.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told "Fox News Sunday" that Democrats from states won by Trump in 2016 "are going to have a very hard decision."
"There's nobody that President Trump could nominate from a conservative bent that will get many Democratic votes," Graham said, "but this is a nightmare for red states Democrats to oppose a highly qualified nominee, and all four of these people are highly qualified, been on the court, know what they’re doing, mainstream judges ... and I hope every Republican will rally behind these picks because they’re outstanding."
Three such Democrats -- Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, voted to confirm Gorsuch along with 51 Republicans last year.
"They're good judges," Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told NBC's "Meet The Press. "I think they'd be fine justices of the Supreme Court. I do think the president has to think about who is the easiest to get confirmed here. And I expect we will do that on sort of a normal timetable, a couple of months."
Trump's outside judicial adviser Leonard Leo, currently on leave from the Federalist Society, said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that this kind of jockeying is standard, noting that "every potential nominee before announcement gets concerns expressed about them by people who might ultimately support them."
Leo said: "Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett have a lot of name recognition among supporters of the president, and I think that ultimately when people like them are nominated, you'll see a lot of folks line up."
Of the other two, he added: "Ray Kethledge and Tom Hardiman, they're a little bit less known by conservatives. And their records are a little bit lighter. So, it might take some time."