house property u s 24

mr. earnest: goodafternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. i apologize for thelate start today. let me do one quickthing at the top, and then we'll hustleon to your questions. as many of you have heardme say many times before, the united states is on thebrink of finalizing the trans-pacificpartnership agreement. and we're hopeful thatthe congress will work to

approve the highest-standardtrade agreement in history, particularly when it comesto protecting labor and environmental rights,intellectual property and a variety of other areas. this is an agreement, aswe've discussed many times, that will cut 18,000 taxesthat various countries impose on products thatare made in america. now, part of thisdiscussion has been the administration's commitmentto enforcing our trade laws.

our track record when itcomes to enforcement actions at the wto is quite good. to date, the united stateshas brought 20 enforcement actions to the wto. that's more than anyother member of the wto. and in fact, where every oneof those disputes has been decided, the unitedstates has won. we're undefeated. i mention that because thatwinning streak continued today.

the wto made an announcementtoday that the united states has won a challenge to rulesin india that discriminate against importedsolar products. this represents asignificant victory for the rapid deployment of solarenergy across the world, but also for clean jobsright here in america. it also represents,as i mentioned, the administration'scontinuing emphasis on using all the tools at ourdisposal to hold our trading

partners accountable. now, in order to furtherexpand our robust trade enforcement efforts, thepresident will sign into law today h.r. 644 -- this is the tradefacilitation and trade enforcement act of 2015. among other things, thisbill will create a trade enforcement trust fundto provide new resources currently authorized at $15million per year for trade

enforcement efforts. it also will bolster theenforcement tools that we can use to protectintellectual property rights, and it will alsogive the united states new and unprecedented measuresto address unfair currency practices. i know this is a stickingpoint with many members of congress who are consideringtheir support for the trans-pacific partnership.

the conferencereport for h.r. 644 that the president willsign into law today creates a new, binding mechanismto confront countries that engage in unfaircurrency practices, and requires theadministration to impose penalties on countriesthat fail to work with us. so the president is seriousboth about having access to these tools, but also inusing them in a way that we can protect theamerican economy,

american businesses,and most importantly, american workers. so, with all that outof the way, darlene, do you want to kick us off? the press: thank you. i have a couple differenttopics to poke you on today. mr. earnest: okay. (laughter) the press: first, what isthe response from here to

speaker ryan saying thatrepublicans are taking legal steps to stop the presidentfrom taking unilateral action to close theprison at guantanamo bay? mr. earnest: i did observethat republicans certainly seem to be in a prettylitigious mood these days. and i guess this is just thelatest installment in that. look, if they spent just aportion of the time that they do in hiring lawyers attaxpayer expense to sue the president to actually workwith the president to make

progress on behalf ofthe american people, they'd have a lot moreto show for their work. and whether that is closingthe prison at guantanamo bay, approving thetrans-pacific partnership, or even fulfilling thevacancy at the supreme court, this is the basicwork that the constitution and the american peopleexpect of the united states senate. and that applies, at leastin some of those cases,

to the house ofrepresentatives as well. but, look, when it comes toour plan to close the prison at guantanamo bay, that'ssomething that we laid out yesterday and it's a planthat we believe merits serious consideration bythe united states congress. the press: a question on thepresident's meeting with the king of jordan. jordan has been talking alot about needing more aid to deal with thesyrian refugees.

did the president offerany additional assistance specifically to jordan todeal with the refugee issue there? mr. earnest: well, thepresident did discuss some additional militaryassistance that the united states will beproviding jordan. obviously the united statesand jordan have an important security relationship thatenhances the national security of bothour countries.

the president talked aboutwhy that relationship is particularly important, andit will be enhanced with these additional resourcesthat were announced today. the united states is thelargest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance tothe humanitarian crisis caused by syria, and thatmeans that we've offered significant assistanceto the jordanians who, themselves, havedemonstrated tremendous generosity in meeting thebasic humanitarian needs of

hundreds of thousands, ifnot more than a million people, who have fledto jordan from syria, trying to escape violence. and this is just oneparticularly troubling consequence of the chaosinside of syria right now. and the united states willcontinue to stand with jordan as they certainly aredoing more than their fair share here to addressthat situation. there were not any newannouncements as it relates

to humanitarianassistance today. but i certainly wouldnot rule out additional humanitarian assistancebeing provided by the united states of america. the press: do you know whatpercentage of the assistance the u.s. has already given to helpsyrian refugees who have gone to jordan? mr. earnest: i don'thave that statistic,

but i can certainly look tosee if that's something we can make available to you. the press: and thenon the supreme court. the announcement yesterdayby senator mcconnell that there would be nohearing, no vote, not even any meetings withwhoever the president chooses for the supremecourt -- does that not complicate the processfor him choosing someone? because you then have tofind someone who is going to

be willing to put themselvesin the middle of this not regular situation when itcomes to a supreme court nominee. mr. earnest: well, darlene,i certainly would agree with that description. i think we have seen anunprecedented attempt to inject politicsinto the situation, and that's ratherunfortunate. it's inconsistent with theexpectations

of the united states constitution. i think it's alsoinconsistent with the expectations of theamerican people. the american people expectthat the united states senate will do their job. and right now, you havemembers of the united states senate suggesting thatthey're not going to do their job for thenext 11 months. and i think that's aposition that's rather

difficult to justify. but that's something thatthey'll have to determine -- they'll have to determinefor themselves whether or not this is a positionthat they can maintain. the president certainly isintent on following through on his constitutionalresponsibilities. the presidentwill do his job. and in fact, his team isalready hard at work at preparing materials for himso that he can eventually

choose the best person tofill the vacancy at the supreme court. and the kinds of people whowould be considered for a position like this i thinkare well aware that every debate that takesplace -- well, let me say it this way. certainly in the modernera, anybody that's been nominated to the supremecourt has gone through a rigorous vetting process.

it's not supposed tobe an easy process. and i don't think theexpectation is -- it's certainly not theexpectation of the president that it's going to be easy. but it is the expectation ofthe president -- and again, i think it's the expectationof the american people -- that it's a process thatwill be carried out seriously, and thatplaces constitutional responsibilities aheadof narrow

political considerations. so that is why both thepresident is committed to following through onhis responsibility. i also think it's why thatwhen the president has decided on the right personto fill this vacancy that that person will beenthusiastic about what is a weighty responsibilitybut also a tremendous opportunity. the press: so you don'tthink it will make the

search more difficult? mr. earnest: i will tell you-- obviously i can't speak for someone who hasnot been asked yet, but i can tell you thatwhen it comes to our search process, we are going to setaside politics and we are going to be focused onhelping the president make a decision about who the bestperson in america is to fill the vacancy onthe supreme court. that's what hewill be focused on,

and that's how he willmake his decision. ayesha. the press: movingon to syria. i know the president saidtoday that he didn't want to raise expectations -- orwas cautious about raising expectations about thecessation of hostilities agreement there. mr. earnest: that's right. the press: secretary kerryhas said that if the parties

don't live up to theagreement or if these peace talks fail, that there havebeen a lot of discussions about a plan b, and thatthere are other options. can you talk a bit aboutwhat would be the plan b if these peace talks don't goahead -- if people don't comply with this agreement,what are the other options for the administration? mr. earnest: well, look, iknow that when people refer to a plan b it assumesthat diplomacy will fail.

and i think thatin some cases, people using thatterminology assume that that means a considerationof military options. and at this point, i'munwilling to discuss potential military optionsat a time when we're hoping that diplomacy can succeed. we're clear-eyedabout the situation, and i think you heard meacknowledge earlier this week that we anticipate thatthere will be some obstacles

to the implementation of thecessation of hostilities. i would anticipate that inthe early days it will be difficult to implement,that there will be some violations, and it will beunclear after a few days or maybe even after a few weeksabout whether or not this understanding will stick. but right now, that's whereour attention is focused. it doesn't mean that wedon't have important military objectivesinside of syria.

of course, we do. the cessation of hostilitiesdoes not apply in any way and does not have any impacton our ability to continue to press the caseagainst isil. in fact, the reason that weare trying to put in place this cessation ofhostilities is in part to get the parties to focuson the need to degrade and ultimately destroy isil, andbegin to make additional progress on the politicaltract and begin to negotiate

the kind of long-overduepolitical solution that everyone acknowledgesis required. the press: but thesediscussions of a plan b, do they includemilitary options? mr. earnest: i'm not goingto speculate at this point about what a planb would include, because our focus right nowis so squarely on trying to ensure the successfulimplementation of the cessation of hostilities.

and i want to be clear, it'snot going to be obvious after a few days,or even few weeks, about whether or notthe implementation has succeeded. in fact, we anticipate thatthere will be some obstacles that are encounteredbasically right away. i should point out that theresponsibility is not just resting with theunited states. the russians and the syrianregime have a significant

burden to bear here inmaking sure that this understanding about acessation of hostilities can be effectively implemented. and based on theunderstanding that's been reached, the world cansee exactly what the expectations are of therussians and the syrians, and it puts them on the hookfor making sure that his can succeed. the press: today, thepresident is going to be

meeting with thevfw commander. there's been some scandalwith the va hospital in cincinnati. there were talks aboutcuts of medical services. there's been aninvestigation -- presence of dirty surgical equipmentin hospital rooms, and things of that nature. has the white houselooked into this at all? has the president raisedany concerns with

the va secretary about this? are there concerns aboutthis scandal in cincinnati? mr. earnest: well,most importantly, the va secretary haslooked into this. this is a situation that thewhite house is aware of. but secretary mcdonald hasworked assiduously in the couple of years that he'sbeen in that role to implement some overduereforms and making sure that we are keeping faithwith our veterans.

and there was important workthat needed to be done to make sure that those healthcare services were being provided in a timely fashionand that they were getting the kind of high-qualityattention that they deserve. and it's beenpainstaking work. but secretary mcdonaldhas been serious about implementing thesereforms and improving the performance of the va. and we certainly are pleasedwith the progress that has

been made underhis leadership, but i think everybody aroundhere acknowledges that there is more important work thatneeds to be done in this regard. and i think when you'retalking about something that is a priorityas high as this, trying to meet the healthcare needs of millions of our bravest citizens, idon't think that work is ever going to be finishedin making sure that we are

serving them in a mannerthat they deserve. and certainly, secretarymcdonald takes that seriously. i can assure you that thecommander-in-chief takes that seriously. and we're going to continueto watch these situations, moving forward. justin. the press: back onthe supreme court. the president said in theoval today, multiple times,

that the american peopleshould decide on his nominee. and i'm wondering -- i mean,that seems to signal kind of a shift from what you guyshave been talking about, which is engaging withsenators directly. and i'm wondering if it sortof previews you guys gearing up for now kind of a publicfight or a political fight over your supremecourt nominee. mr. earnest: well, justin, iwould urge you not to read

that as a shift, primarilybecause i don't think the president intended to send asignal of any kind about a shift. our focus right now is onnominating the best person for the job. that's the president'sresponsibility right now, and he's hardat work on that. and when asked what's goingto change the senate's mind about this nominee andconvince the senate that

they should fulfill theirresponsibility to give the nominee the courtesyof a meeting, and do what every supremecourt nominee since 1875 has done, which is appear at ahearing before the united states senate to discusstheir potential nomination -- that's true of everynominee who wasn't withdrawn before the hearingwas convened. so there's a longstandingprecedent here. and i do think that thepresident believes that

we're certainly going tocontinue to make our case to the united states senatethat they should do their job. the president has called asignificant number of the members of thejudiciary committee, both democratsand republicans. and the president ishoping that he'll have an opportunity to actually meetwith the chair and ranking member of that importantcommittee who would consider -- who would host thosehearings

and consider the nominee. the last i heard isthat senator leahy, who's the ranking member,has said that he's eager to meet this week. we have not yet heard backfrom chairman grassley, but we're hopeful that we'llbe able to schedule that meeting quite soon. and that's what thepresident has done the two previous times that hesought to fill those

vacancies -- he's hadmeetings in the oval office with the chair and rankingmember of the senate judiciary committee,both in 2009 and 2010. and that's what hewants to do this time, because he takes seriouslyhis responsibility to consult with congress. so we're certainly going tocontinue to be making our case. but i think the president isalluding to the fact that i think most americans agreethat senators weren't

elected to a term of fiveyears and one month, but rather, they wereelected to six-year terms. and they should spend thatsix years doing what the constitution describes. and that's the casethat we'll make, and i think there's broadpublic agreement about that. the press: speakingof that consultation, the washington post reportedearlier today that senator reid had asked

the presidentto look at the governor of nevada as one of thecandidates for the supreme court, and that the white house was vetting governor sandoval. i'm wondering if you cantalk at all about whether that request wasmade by senator reid, and if on the list that youhave said is not complete, that governor sandovalis one of those names. mr. earnest: well, we havereported that the president

has spoken to senator reidabout the supreme court vacancy. he did that at theend of last week. and i don't have any detailsabout their conversation to share with you. i haven't read thewashington post story, but i was told about itbefore i walked out here. i suspect it is only thefirst of many stories that speculate on potentialsupreme court nominees. and i don't think it will behelpful for me to get into a

rhythm of responding toeach one as it appears. so we're going to letthe process play out. the president is goingto conduct this work rigorously. and once he has chosen thebest person to fill this vacancy, then we can havea conversation about that individual's credentials. the press: i asked you lastweek about work in the senate on an encryptionbill that would allow law enforcement access toencrypted technology,

if they were ableto get a warrant. senators burr and feinsteinsaid now they're actually drafting this legislationand they hope to introduce it in march. i'm wondering, has thewhite house been involved, or do you plan to beinvolved in the drafting of that legislation? mr. earnest: i don'tknow the extent of the conversations on this issue.

obviously, this is an issuethat our policymakers here at the white house andacross the administration have spent a lot oftime considering. and so i certainly wouldn'trule out some consultation between the administrationand capitol hill as members of the senate who areinterested in this issue try to develop helpfullegislation. we'll want to play aconstructive role in that process.

but i don't know at thispoint to what extent administration officialshave been consulted about that bill. the press: in theory, areyou very supportive of the legislation? i mean, you've kind oftalked about a sweet spot between apple not decidingand the white house, or the administrationnot deciding. in this case, congressand the courts

would be deciding. it's been iffy before on ifyou'd support an encryption. so i'm wondering if --acknowledging that the specifics of the bill aren'tout -- if this, in general, is something that youguys can get behind. mr. earnest: well,look, as you point out, we have previously beenquite skeptical of legislative handling ofthis particular matter. but i'm confident that we'llengage constructively with

those members of the senatewho are interested in this issue. i don't know at this pointwhether or not this will result in a piece oflegislation that we will embrace. but i feel confident intelling you that there will be consultation betweensenior administration officials and the senatorswho are writing this bill. margaret.

the press: josh, in the blogpost from the president this morning, he said we are-- in the weeks ahead, we will see a decisionon his nominee. did that mean to suggestthat we are weeks away from a decision? mr. earnest: i don't knowthat that necessarily provided a whole lotof insight, though, into the president'stimeline. we previously noted that thepresident nominated

justice sotomayor and justice kaganabout a month or so after the previous vacanciesoccurred in 2009 and 2010, respectively. i don't have a newtimeline to lay out here, but certainly "in the weeksahead" language would be consistent withprevious timelines. but it also could foreshadowa slightly shorter timeline or even somewhatlonger timeline.

so we'll just have to see. the press: that was helpful. the press: you know thequestions are just going to get worse and worse. but two weeks into this,what you're signaling then is that the presidentis just not in a place, not only information-wise,but perhaps, given the president'scomments today with the press, that he needs maybeto lay a little bit more

groundwork politically. it seems like the strategyis take your time; go slow and steady,emphasizing how much of a quick reaction you'reseeing on capitol hill from republicans. do you mean to emphasizethat contrast? mr. earnest: i think whatwe're trying to emphasize is two principles that i wouldacknowledge are in some tension.

the first is, there is ampletime left in this term, left in the president'sfinal term in office. there is also ample timebefore the beginning of the next supreme court term inoctober for the president to carefully considera nominee, put that nominee forward,for that individual to get a fair hearing and atimely yes-or-no vote. we've noted that overthe last 40 years or so, about the average time framefor a supreme court nominee

to go from nominationto confirmation -- the press: but this isanything but average when it comes to the politicalfirestorm you're looking that. mr. earnest: that averagetime frame is about 67 days. and i would acknowledge,as i did with darlene, that what we have seen fromrepublicans is rather -- is unprecedented. not just ratherunprecedented; it is genuinelyunprecedented.

and that said -- thepresident alluded to this in the oval office -- theconstitution doesn't include any exceptions forelection years. the expectation ofour founders and the expectations of the americanpeople are that the united states senatewill do its job, even though it'san election year. and particularly in this eraof what's often described as the permanent campaign, itseems like you could use

this as a permanent excuse;that you could say, well, there's just anotherelection around the corner. and the fact is, by spendingmore time focused on elections and less timefocused on constitutional responsibilities,republicans in the united states senate riskpoliticizing a branch of the united states governmentthat's supposed to be insulated from politics. and that certainly ispart of the stakes here.

look, the other part of --the other stakes involved here are the fact that wehave a supreme court right now that is functioningwith a vacancy. that's obviously not howthe founders intended. and it certainly, again,is inconsistent with the the press: and you saidthat there's a risk of politicizing thesupreme court. do you mean to suggest aswell that the president is not looking for thepolitical affiliations of

potential nominees? would he be willing toappoint a republican? mr. earnest: i think thepresident laid out in his scotus -- in his blog, onthe scotusblog today -- some of my colleagues have beenjoking that it's the potus blog on the scotusblog --but the president made clear in that presentation exactlythe criteria that he intends to use to select a nominee. and you are right thatthere is no reference to a

nominee's politicalaffiliation. there's no reference towhich candidates they have previously supported inthe political process. there is no reference to thepolitical party that he or she has joined. the president is focusedon criteria that, frankly, is more important, andthat is an individual's qualifications and theirexperience and their view of the law.

that will take precedenceover any sort of political consideration. the press: so,in theory, yes, he would consider arepublican for this job? mr. earnest: again, i thinkthe accurate way to say it is that the president isnot going to -- when the president gets to a stage --and i'm confident that he will get here -- where he'sinterviewing nominees or potential nomineesin a conversation,

i'm confident that he's notgoing to ask them which party primary they vote in. the press: he'dprobably know. mr. earnest: i'm sorry? the press: he'd know, goinginto the meeting -- no? mr. earnest: notnecessarily. the press: well, if he weresitting down with a certain gop governor -- mr. earnest: oh, i seewhat you're saying.

well, i guess in somesituations, you're right, that may be a little moreobvious that in others. the press: and you saidinterviews right there. no interviews have actuallybeen held yet with -- mr. earnest: no interviewshave been held at this point. and i'll answer thatquestion because i raised it. but i don't anticipatethat we'll make a public acknowledgement when thosesorts of interviews have been conducted.

the press: and oneon syria, if i could. you said you're unwilling todiscuss military options as a potential plan b. "plan b" was a phrased usedby the secretary of state, at least twiceso far, publicly. so it wasn't simplyspeculative; it was from theadministration. so is there or isthere not a plan b? mr. earnest: well, i thinkthe point that i was making

to ayesha is that we arefocused on trying to bring about the successfulimplementation of the understanding about acessation of hostilities. that is certainly the focusof secretary kerry's efforts and it's the focal point ofall of the work that's going on as a part ofour work in syria. again, the cessation ofhostilities does not apply to our ongoing militaryefforts against isil. those efforts continue, andthey will continue unabated.

but when it comes tothis diplomatic track, our focus right now is ontrying to get this cessation of hostilities implemented,and that we navigate the early potholes in theroad that we're sure to encounter. the press: so you'reunwilling to discuss a plan b, but you're not unwillingto entertain a possibility of military option? because many wouldsay, frankly,

they'd be shocked if theadministration would consider a military option,given that consistently the administration has beenagainst any kind of military option in syria. mr. earnest: right. a lot of our critics, or atleast sort of the armchair quarterbacks have suggestedthat a plan b should be considered that wouldinclude some sort of military option.

and i think the case thati'm trying to make here is that we're very focused ontrying to implement the the reason that i'm notruling out a plan b generally is becauseyou would expect the administration to takeresponsible steps around contingency planning. we do that on essentiallyevery policy question that the president faces, bothforeign and domestic. so i'm not suggesting thatthere's not a discussion

about potentialcontingencies, but i am suggesting thatthose kinds of discussions are not the focus of ourattention right now. what is the focus of ourattention is the successful implementation of acessation of hostilities. jc. the press: lessthan two weeks ago, the vice president wason the phone with the popular-elected presidentof ukraine, poroshenko.

they discussed the politicalimportance of the minsk agreement, hostilities stillraging in the eastern part of that country, and theireffort together to root out any kind ofcorruption, et cetera. might the president -- sincehe has been meeting with some leaders to bring moreopenness in his last part of his administration, might heconsider a visit to ukraine in this last year ofhis administration? mr. earnest: well, i don'thave any updates about the

president's travelat this point. obviously, the situation inukraine is something that has -- it's been somethingthat the administration has been working onquite a bit lately. and obviously, vicepresident biden had the opportunity to travel toukraine at the end of last year. and i think vicepresident biden, probably more than anyoneat senior levels of the administration, has beeninvested in trying to bring

about the resolution inukraine that we'd like to see. much of that has beenblunted by the refusal of the russians to implementtheir part of the minsk agreements. we have seen the ukrainianstake some important steps. we've also seen theukrainians put in place some important reforms that willbe beneficial to their longer-term success. but right now, the biggestproblem is the continued

willingness of the russiansand the separatists in eastern ukraine thatthey back to flout the obligations and commitmentsthat they made in the minsk agreement. and even as ukraine isfacing some significant challenges, they cancontinue to rely on the united states to be thereto support them as they navigate thisdifficult situation. mary.

the press: you've saidlawmakers aren't fulfilling their responsibility whenit comes to the president's supreme court nominee. but under the constitution,congress's only responsibility is to giveadvice and consent on the president's nominee. clearly, senate republicansare opting not to consent. but just to be clear, do youfeel that they are defying their constitutionalresponsibility,

or simply breakingprecedent? mr. earnest: well, i thinkit's a little of both -- both when you consider thatevery nominee that was put forward by a president since1875 that wasn't later withdrawn by that presidenthas received a hearing and/or a vote in theunited states senate. it may even go backfarther than that, but that's essentially asfar back as our records went. so i think that is anindication of how their

actions are not consistentwith more than 120 years of precedent here. what's also true isthat republicans, in offering up an excuse,often suggest that, oh, well, there's an 80-yearprecedent of not confirming supreme court nomineesin an election year. the fact is, that'snot correct either. justice kennedy wasconfirmed by a democratic majority in the unitedstates senate in 1988,

and justice kennedy wasa nominee of president reagan's. so it's not just thatjustice kennedy was confirmed in a presidentialelection year, it's not just that he wasconfirmed in the final year of president reagan'stenure in office; it's that justice kennedywas confirmed by democrats in the senate, even thoughhe'd been appointed by, or nominated by arepublican president. that's the essence of thecase that we've made.

and i know that the letterthat was circulated by republicans on the judiciarycommittee yesterday got a lot of attention. i think what also meritssome attention is that two of the 11 people that signedthat letter were people who actually voted for justicekennedy to confirm him in a presidential election year. so there's a little ironyabout this whole thing. i think it is whyrepublicans are going to

continually be evaluatingwhether or not the unreasonable, obstructionistprecedent-breaking posture that they have adopted isone that they will sustain over the course ofthe next 11 months. i think that will be adifficult thing for them to do. the press: but do youfeel they're defying that responsibility to giveadvice and consent? mr. earnest: well, look, ithink for hundreds of years, the senate has had a lot ofclarity about what exactly

their responsibilities arewhen it comes to the supreme court. and those responsibilitiesare that the president nominates someone and thesenate offers their advice and consent. senators don'tthink to themselves, when evaluatinga nominee, "gee, is this the person thati would have picked?" rather, what they do is theyconsider whether or not this

is somebody that they areconfident will serve in a lifetime appointment in thesupreme court with honor and distinction. and the president has hadsuccess the last two times that he has nominatedsupreme court justices, and nominating people thathe was able to persuade republicans would servethe country with honor and distinction --and they have. and i'm confident that'swhat the president will do

this time in terms of theperson that he puts forward. hopefully, republicans willbe able to set politics aside and focus andprioritize their constitutional duties. the press: and any word backyet from senator grassley to the president's invitation? mr. earnest: thelast i heard, which is about90 minutes ago, is that we had not yet hearddirectly from him about

whether or not he wouldattend the meeting. but we're certainlyhopeful that he will. the press: and just onequestion on the campaign. now that donald trump hasthree of four contests, does the president feelor consider him to be the presumptiverepublican nominee? mr. earnest: i haven't askedthe president that question. i think the president hasweighed in i think pretty directly on his views aboutmr. trump's chances if he is

the republican nominee. but i don't think thatthe president will, at this point, weigh in onhis expectations about who will be therepublican nominee. julie. the press: thanks. earlier today, when thepresident talked about the supreme court, he seemed tosuggest -- you said he used the phrase, "this willevolve over time."

and he seemed to suggestthat he thinks that once there's a nominee,a name out there, that he thinks that it'spossible the republicans will rethink their position. did he mean to suggest that? and then also, it sort ofwould seem to point to him trying to figure out anominee would be a consensus choice, rather than somebodythe republicans would look at as a liberal crusader orsomeone who would be a sop

to the progressive base. is it fair to draw thatconclusion from what he said? mr. earnest: well, let'sseparate out those two things. you may have to remind meof the second question. i'll focus onthe first part. i think the factof the matter is, we've actually already seena number of senators change their positionon this issue. there are a number ofsenators who have come

forward, initially declaringtheir openness to a vote or their openness to acommittee hearing, or their oppositionto a filibuster, and then to have walked thatback after a conversation with the republicanleader in the senate. they'll have to explain thatto their constituents why they seem to be listeningmore closely to what the republican leader in thesenate tells them as opposed to following what theconstitution tells them to do.

but i think we've alreadyseen an evolution in the position that somesenators have taken, and so i certainly -- itwould be inaccurate to suggest that the positionsthat have been adopted by republicans in thesenate have been fixed. some of them i guess it has,but certainly not all of them. and i think what is alsotrue is that we also have seen some members of thesenate come forward and say that the president's nomineeshould get a hearing.

and so, if anything, there'sbipartisan support for a hearing. and we're hopeful thatthat's what the senate will do. the press: but he did seemto suggest that when they see the nominee and seethat the nominee is, in his words,well qualified, they may changetheir position. and that does seem tosuggest that he is going to pick a certain kind ofnominee that republicans

would look at as someone whodeserved a fair hearing. so is it fair to draw thatconclusion from what he said? mr. earnest: well, iwouldn't speculate at this point about who thepresident is going to choose. but we do have two relevantpoints of reference, and those are in the formof justice sotomayor and justice kagan. these were two women withunquestioned qualifications. they had differentkinds of experience,

but the kind of experiencethat would serve them well on the bench. the presidentput them forward, and they were supported byi think just about every democrat and somerepublicans. that is abipartisan process. and i'm confident that whenthe president makes a final decision the president willbe able to make a forceful case that those individualsdeserve at least the same

kind of bipartisan supportthat justice sotomayor and justice kagan got. the press: is he consultingwith the republicans who (inaudible) talk to aboutwho they think should be considered? mr. earnest: look, i'mnot going to get into the details of theirconversations. but obviously you wouldexpect that there would be some discussion about whothe president picks

in those consultations. i will say that it isprobably hard to have that conversation if the personon the other end of the phone has said that they'renot willing to consider anyone. it sort of makesit hard to -- the press: even if they'resheepish about it? mr. earnest: well, maybeeven if they're sheepish about it, they're -- maybeif they're sheepish about it in public, maybe they're alittle bit more willing to

discuss it privately. but i don't have details ofthose calls to read out. there's another element toyour question that i'm not sure i answered. the press: well, that wasif it was fair to draw the conclusion from what yousaid that he was looking for a consensus pick. if he's looking for someonewho republicans would look at and say, this persondeserves a hearing even

though i said i'm not goingto grant a hearing -- that would seem to point us inthe direction that the president is looking fora moderate or someone who would be seen asacceptable to republicans. mr. earnest: well, again, ithink that's what i would try to sort of distillhere, is that -- again, the requirement of theunited states senate is not to only vote for theperson that you, yourself, would have chosen to filla vacancy on the supreme court.

so i'm confident,for example, that at least some of therepublicans who ended up voting for justice sotomayorprobably had someone higher than her on theirown personal list. that's okay. that's a perfectlyreasonable position. but that's not what theconstitution requires. what the constitutionrequires is determining whether or not this is anindividual who can serve the

country with honor anddistinction -- do they have the qualifications necessaryto serve on the supreme court. and that's thecriteria they used, and that was the criteriathey used in making the decision to support justicesotomayor's nomination. i think we're realisticabout the fact that whoever the president puts forward,even if this is the most nonpartisan person andthe most insightful legal thinker in history, theperson is not going to get

100 votes in theunited states senate. we're realistic about that. and the president hasacknowledged that politics have been injectedin this process. and particularly people likesenator cruz and senator rubio, if they're stillrunning for president at the time, that's going to makeit an even more complicated vote for them. the president understandsthat firsthand.

so that's understandable. the question is, is theinstitution of the united states senate prepared toact and function in a way that the americanpeople expect? right now it's not. but will that change overtime and will that change once there is a nomineeput forward that has indisputable qualifications? hopefully.

but we'll see. michelle. the press: justabout a week ago, when the president wastraveling and he was talking about this when asked, heuse words like venom and rancor, saying we've almostbecome accustomed to the obstructionismof republicans. but today, it just seemedlike there was a markedly different tone.

he used wordslike sympathetic, saying he understands thepressure and the posture, saying he recognizes thepolitics are difficult. why this sort ofchange in tone there? is he kind of coming aroundto seeing why this is possible? because, like i said, aweek ago it was all this is obstructionist, andthis keeps happening, and this shouldn't happen. mr. earnest: well, thepresident did make the

observation even when he wason the road that this is a process that has beensubjected to politics and that it was going to beimpossible to extract all politics out ofthe situation, but that what he's focusedon is making sure that the institution of the unitedstates senate functions as the american people and asthe constitution expect. and, look, you'reright, though, that the senate is not offto a good start on this.

refusing the courtesy of avisit with the president's potential nominee? that's certainly not thespirit that either the founders of thecountry expected; i also don't think it's thespirit that most americans would expect. they elected membersof congress to come to washington, d.c., fulfilltheir constitutional responsibilities and do thework of the american people.

and allowing a supreme courtvacancy to extend on for more than a year i don'tthink fits anybody's description of members ofthe senate doing their job. and particularly, announcingthis reflexive opposition just hours after justicescalia's death and even before the president hashad an opportunity to put someone forward so thattheir qualifications can be evaluated i think againis more evidence of how politicized thisprocess has been.

i noted in some of thecoverage yesterday that senator mcconnell apparentlypaid a visit yesterday to the house freedom caucus. it's unclear if theymet at tortilla coast. i know that is a frequentwatering hole for some members of that caucus. but i think the fact thatsenator mcconnell requested the visit, that this wasthe first time he'd ever addressed the group, andthat members of his staff at

least told a couple ofreporters that he was pleased with the receptionthat he got might be an indication that politics islooming rather large here. and again, i think it'spretty clear that the previous tortilla coastgambit that was employed in the house wasn't asuccessful strategy, and hopefully, thosekinds of tactics have not metastasized to theunited states senate. the press: it sounds likethe president is no longer

harshly criticizingrepublicans and he's saying, i'm sympathetic,i understand, i know where it's comingfrom -- is he trying a different tact? is he thinking that thismight help things along, given that this is one dayafter republicans basically said, hell, no,we're not doing this? mr. earnest: i think thisis a reflection of the president'slonger-term view.

the president is not goingto announce who his nominee is tomorrow. this isn't going to playout in the next 24 hours. as the scotusblogpoints out today, this is a process that'sgoing to play out at least over a couple of weeks. and the good news iswe do have ample time. we do have time for thepresident to make a decision, tonominate someone,

and there willbe ample time, consideringrecent precedent, for the president's nomineeto get a fair hearing and a timely up or down vote. the press: so who was thepresident trying to reach in this scotusblog? why did he want to dothat in that venue? mr. earnest: the goal hereis to help all of you, but also theamerican people,

understand exactly what kindof criteria he's evaluating as he contemplates whoshould fill the vacancy on the supreme court. and so that's why he sort ofwalks through the kind of qualifications andexperience and temperament that he would like to see. the press: so when he'ssaying that he recognizes the politics behind whatrepublicans are doing now, and he said the easier thingto do is to give into the

extreme voices of theparty, and in fact, when he went for afilibuster against alito, was he then giving into themore extreme voices in his own party? mr. earnest: i think thepresident acknowledged that he regretted the votebecause of the role that politics played there. the difference in thatsituation, though, is it was already well-knownat the time that the senate

was prepared to act onjustice alito's nomination and that he had sufficientsupport to be confirmed. the press: wasn't that justplaying politics then? is that why the presidentunderstands this so well? mr. earnest: i think it'swhy the president regrets the vote. but again, that is differentthan taking the kind of action that knowinglydisrupts the ability of the united states senate toperform their institutional

and constitutional duty. so, again, i think thepresident acknowledged that he accepted someresponsibility for this. but he also acknowledged whythese two situations are different. and it certainly is a farcry from opposing president bush's nominee withouteven considering who that individual is. in fact, the president hadsome substantive objections

to presidentbush's nomination. the press: i mean, you'remaking the argument that there are not -- i mean,it's obviously breaking precedent that they're noteven going to take this up, if they do what they saythey're going to do. but let's say they pleasethe public and try not to make so many wavesby taking it up, but then they're just notgoing to let it go through, they're not going tovote this person in.

is there really anydifference if that's just going to be the outcome? mr. earnest: well, i thinkit would be a notable difference for acouple of things. first is it would reflect asignificant change in their position. right now, you have thesenate majority leader saying that he won't evenmeet with that person. i don't know if that meansthat he'll just lock the

office door that day. so, again, if we got to aplace where that nominee is treated withcourtesy and respect, engages in thekinds of private, one-on-one meetings thathave been taking place between supreme courtnominees and united states senators for generations,and we see a public hearing where an individualtestifies under oath about their qualificationsfor the job,

and members of the senatejudiciary committee have an opportunity to explorethose views in public, on television foreveryone to see, that is much more consistentwith the senate's constitutionalresponsibility. and at that point, membersof the senate will then have to consider whether or notthis person has succeeded in making the case that heor she has the proper credentials to serve in alifetime appointment

and, again, i think what'srelevant about this is, at that point, after ahearing has taken place, the american people willhave some sort of opinion about this. and whether or not thathas any influence over the opinion of individualsenators i think remains to be seen. but the criteria that thepresident will choose is somebody who in a settinglike i've just described

will be able to demonstratethat they are the best person for the job and thatthey can serve with honor and distinction onthe supreme court. the press: the presidentalso mentioned that, let's see if the americanpublic thinks that they're well within the mainstream. so is it safe to assume thathis nominee will be well within the mainstream? mr. earnest: i think, basedon the president's comments

in the oval office today, ithink you can add that to the list of accuratedescriptions of who the president willeventually choose. april. the press: i want to goback to the supreme court process. has the president metinformally with people, just having conversationswith some of the people, not necessarily formalinterviews but just have

like a meeting, hey,how are you doing, or just coming through? mr. earnest: april, i'm justnot going to be able to provide that much granularinsight into how this process is shaping up. it's still earlyon in the process. a final list has not beencompiled at this point. but i don't have any moredetail to share beyond that. the press: a finalisthasn't been made,

but there is a list, asyou have said, yourself. now, with that list, isthere a possibility that the president already knows manyof these people on the list and may have alreadyinteracted before in the oval office andother places? mr. earnest: well, iwouldn't -- i don't have a lot of insight to share withyou about who is on the list or even what kinds ofpeople are on the list. i can say, asi've said before,

that just because peoplehave been considered the previous time but not chosendoesn't disqualify them from being considered this time. so my point is it certainlyis possible that the president could be familiarwith the qualifications and background of a potentialnominee that he's considered in a previous round. the press: -- that healready met those people in a previous round thatare on the old list?

mr. earnest: some of them. the press: so there's apossibility that some of them he already hasfamiliarity with that are on this list? mr. earnest: thatcertainly is possible. but again, i won't confirmwho exactly is on the list. the press: lastly, how muchdoes legacy play into this process? mr. earnest: well, the truthis that i would expect that

historians will lookback on this moment, and i think they'll beevaluating not just the performance of the presidentbut also the performance of the senate. and i think the presidenthas found that over his first seven years in office,that the way that he's most likely to be proud of whathe did in his eight years in the white house is byfocusing on the task in front of him and making thebest possible decision.

and that's the kind ofcriteria that he'll use in choosing this nominee. scott. the press: josh, i justwanted to ask about something that you saidin your opening remarks. you we're talking about theunbeaten record in trade disputes. i'm trying to square thatwith what happened at wto with the countryof origin labels.

mr. earnest: these are 20enforcement actions that have been brought to thewto by the united states. the press: strictlyenforcement actions. mr. earnest: enforcementactions brought by the united states. and the reason this isrelevant is because there are concerns by someopponents of tpp who suggest that the president somehowhas not been as aggressive as he should be in lookingout for the interests of the

united states when it comesto international trade. but the fact of the matteris the united states has brought more enforcementactions to the wto than any other member of the wto,and each one that has been decided has beenresolved in our favor. so that's an indication notjust of how rigorous the administration has been inputting forward enforcement actions to protectthe american economy, it also shows that we'vebeen successful in

protecting the u.s. economy. the press: critics of tpphave also raised concerns that the u.s. would be less able toenforce its own rules about standards, where our meat israised, that sort of thing, if we were subject toan international body. and that was sort of borneout in the wto decision on the country of origin. mr. earnest: well, someof these details are

complicated -- i don't knowthat i can get into the details of it. i think the firstobservation i would have at least when it comes to theexample of agricultural products, the american farmbureau is a strong supporter and has endorsed thetrans-pacific partnership. they didn't do that justas a political favor to president barack obama. in fact, on mostpolitical issues,

they come down on theopposite side of president obama. but in this case, theyrecognize that the u.s. agricultural industry hasmuch to gain from leveling the playing field withcountries in southeast asia -- or asia andthe asia pacific. so i can't speak to thespecific country of origin labeling ruling thatyou described there, but if we need to explorethat more i'm sure we can

find somebody who knows alot more about it than i do. felicia. the press: the iranianelections are on friday. do you have anycomment on them, or anything you canshare about what the administrationis watching for? mr. earnest: i don't. at this point, i've resisted-- i've usually succeeded in resisting extensivecommentary on the u.s. election.

i'm certainly going toreserve judgment on the iranian electionat this point. but obviously, this is anopportunity for the iranian people to maketheir voices heard. and it's not just theunited states that will be watching. the world will be watching. ron. the press: just listening toall the supreme court stuff,

i think one thing i thinkwe'd agree on is that the american public is tired ofall this partisanship and this back-and-forth andnothing getting done here, and all the acrimonyback and forth. so why doesn't thepresident -- and you said, in terms of these meetingswith republicans and others and discussions he's doing,kind of the same thing he's done with kagan andsotomayor process -- why doesn't he adopt adifferent process?

why doesn't -- to follow upon julie's question -- tell the public, we'll finda consensus candidate? we won't make this divisive,and be transparent and open about it, instead of allthis "i'm going to do my job, they shoulddo their job." and he's talked about howthis is one of his biggest regrets ever in officeof this rancor and partisanship. so why doesn't he try adifferent approach that's

transparent, that is aconsensus so that the country doesn't have tosuffer through months and months of all thisback-and-forth? mr. earnest: ron, i actuallyhave a really direct answer to this question, which isit is impossible to find consensus when theyrepublicans in the united states senate said thatthey won't support anybody, they won't evenconsider anybody, they won't even offer upa courtesy meeting with

anybody that thepresident puts forward. so i -- the press: so you thinkthat's going to happen? or do you thinkit's bluster? do you think that's --in this a poker game, that's the first -- youtake them seriously? mr. earnest: i think it wasleader mcconnell himself who indicated that he veryrarely finds himself off message.

so i believe that hemeant what he said. i certainly have noreason to doubt it. i don't think it'sthe right position. i certainly don't thinkit's a position that most americans support. i do think there'ssome evidence, based on his meeting withthe house freedom caucus, that politics are playingtoo large of a role here. but ultimately, he's thesenate majority leader and

he'll have to determine whathe believes is the most effective way tolead the senate. the questions now for himare different than they used to be. he was a senate majority --minority leader for a long time, and he found that --or at least he concluded that political obstructionwas a useful political benefit for him. he saw that as his strategyand his road map for getting

back into the majority. but, apparently, that's astrategy that he's chosen to continue to pursue. the press: but again, it'sback to what they need to do and so on and so forth. where does the white housesee some compromise in all this? although you don't want toperhaps tip your hand or show your cardsbecause of this, again, endless game ofpartisanship,

but is there some way toget out of this situation? again, does the white house-- does the president have some idea, some approachthat can be different, that can spare the countryall this back-and-forth for another -- mr. earnest: well, thepresident certainly would like to try. but that's going to be hardto do when you have members of the united states senatesaying that they won't do

courtesy visits withwhomever the president puts forward. that's going to be hard todo when every republican on the judiciary committee saysthat for the first time since 1875, they won't evenhold a hearing for whomever the president puts forward. and this is even before thepresident has put forward a nominee. so again, i think it's goingto be hard to try to find

some common ground untilrepublicans -- because this is the thing that i think isnotable -- and i made this point yesterday -- this isnot even a situation of republicans sayingthat they object. this is republicans sayingthat they even refuse to consider. and that's why it's hard forthem to make the case that they're doing their jobs. again, for most americans,they're showing up to work

not even consideringany alternatives. i don't think that's part ofanybody's job description. the press: and you'renot getting any signals privately thatthat's not real? mr. earnest: well, thepresident made the observation in the ovaloffice that some people might be a littlesheepish about this. so again -- butwe'll have to see. these are individuals whohave been elected by states

across the country to servein six-year terms -- not five-year, one-month terms-- but six-year terms in the united states senate. many of them had to gothrough hotly contested campaigns both in a primaryand a general election to get there. many of them have beenreelected multiple times. these are serious people. they understand what'srequired

to make serious decisions. they understand the stakesthat are involved when you're considering alifetime appointment they understand thedecisions that are made in the united states senatehave an impact on the country. the press: and just lastly,why did the president speak out today? nine minutes -- that's avery -- and it seemed like

he was prepared. he was ready -- not thathe's not ever unprepared -- but he seemedready for that, he seemed to wantto take that moment. it seemed planned. it seemed that he thoughtabout it a lot to spend nine minutes talking about this. why today? was it the flat refusalto have meetings?

was there something inparticular that someone said to him, or somethingthat he was aware of? mr. earnest: i thinkwhat this reflects, ron, is -- i noticed that it wasa rather lengthy answer, as well; detailedsome might say. i think this is a reflectionthat the president has spent a lot of timethinking about this. this is an indicationthe president did do his homework over the weekendwhen he was considering the

materials that have been puttogether by his legal team. this is an indicationthat he has had multiple conversations with membersin both parties on capitol hill about theproper way forward. i think this is a goodillustration of just how seriously the presidenttakes this constitutional responsibility of his. and i think you can expectthat seriousness of purpose to continue throughoutthis process.

the press: you said not in24 hours and not in a couple of weeks -- meaningtwo weeks, or 14 days? so can we draw those lines? mr. earnest: when isaid a couple of weeks, i knew i was goingto regret it. i would encourage you notto over-read into that. the press: i wastrying to read exactly. mr. earnest: yes. and what i would refer tois the president's words on

scotusblog today that in thecoming weeks he'll have a decision to announce. the press: you can go backand do that fine line -- mr. earnest: exactly. but thank you for giving methe operation to clarify that. i do appreciate that. kevin, go ahead. the press: thanks, josh. i just want tosort of -- again,

without sort of trying tohave you say exactly who is on the list, how importantwould it be for the president to consider afemale judge for the high court? mr. earnest: well, thepresident has obviously appointed two distinguished,accomplished women to the supreme court in his firsttwo years in office. but, again, i think thepresident will evaluate the nominees' credentialsbased on their record,

based on their intellect,based on their experience. and the gender of thisindividual does not rate highly on the list. the press: let me followup by simply asking then, given the makeup ofthe court currently, is it relevant at all that-- for the broad swath of history, there have beenrelatively few women on the high court. and him now having appointedtwo, or nominated two,

and having successfullytwo confirmed, would it not be importantthen for him to continue that trend to more equitablybalance the court? at least fromthat perspective, is that interestingat all to him? is that a conversationthat he's had? mr. earnest: well, i'mconfident that the president will consider somewomen candidates. but at this point, i don'tthink that the gender of the

nominee will drivethe decision. what will drive the decisionwill be that individual's qualifications, theirexperience and their intellect, their ability toserve on the supreme court of the united states withhonor and distinction. the press: any chance thatthe president will -- if he can't persuade senatormcconnell or grassley or others to come here --will he go to the hill? mr. earnest: the presidenthas certainly

done that before. he's done meetings oncapitol hill before. but in the aftermath ofthe last two supreme court vacancies, the president hasconvened a meeting in the oval office with the leadersof the judiciary committee, and he's interested indoing the same thing again. senator leahy from vermont,who's the ranking member of the judiciary committee,has agreed to that meeting. and so the meetingwill take place.

hopefully chairmangrassley will be there. the press: and do you havea readout of possibly when that might have happen? mr. earnest: idon't at this point, but we'll keep yourapprised of that. i'll point out that the twoprevious times that the president convenedthese meetings, in both 2009 and 2010, thepool was allowed in there, and photographs were taken.

and the president even madea brief statement to the pool at both circumstances. the press: --tortilla coast. mr. earnest: well, exactly. the press: lastly, i justwanted to ask you about his conversation with the kingtoday and the importance of the partnership in thefight against isil. there seems to be some sensethat there's a disagreement within the administrationabout how best to go

forward, in particulargiven russia's previous disposition forbreaking agreements, be they minsk or others. how concerned is thepresident that even if a cease-fire is brokered thatthe russians simply won't hold to it? and is there a rift withinthe administration at all at how best to go aboutapplying more pressure on the syrians and others tohopefully get this to stick?

mr. earnest: i can tellyou there is unanimity of opinion inside theadministration that successfully implementing acessation of hostilities is the clearest and best way toadvance our interests there. it will allow multiplethings to happen. first of all, it will givea boost to the ongoing but fledgling politicaltransition process there. it will allow the freer flowof humanitarian assistance to areas of syria that rightnow are hard to access

because of the fighting. it also will refocuseveryone's attention on the counter-isil effort. and we have said for quitesome time that russia should stop taking strikes in syriawhere there is little, if any, isil presence, andactually integrate their military efforts with thebroader international coalition and actually startfocusing their firepower on isil.

that is why the cessation ofhostilities has emerged as a priority. you're also pointing outsomething that is really important, which is that itrequires the russians to live up to what they'vecommitted to here, and that's a tall order. so that may be hard to do. it's why i do anticipatethat it will be a little bit of start-and-stopprocess at the beginning.

but if over the courseof several weeks, we can get that cessationof hostilities implemented, it will allow us to focus onthe more important tasks at hand, like thepolitical transition, the delivery of criticallyimportant humanitarian aid, and a renewed focus on thepart of countries like russia on actuallysucceeding in degrading and ultimately destroying isil. gregory.

i want to go back toguantanamo bay if i could. a lot of attention yesterdaywas on the president's proposal to close thefacility outright by transferringdetainees to u.s. soil. there's a couple of otherthings that he proposed, or said that he was -- theadministration was already doing to -- for example,speed up the periodic review board process, form themilitary commissions, et cetera. if, in fact, he -- if thoseperiodic review board

hearings are completed bythe end of the summer, as the president said,and if the current trends continue, a lot of humanrights activists who are watching these cases said wecould get down to perhaps a half dozen people who arenot eligible for transfer to some third country -- if youcan find third countries willing to make thesecurity and humanitarian arrangements to take them. so then, in addition to the10 military commissions,

you've got maybe adozen or so hard-core, sort of indefinitedetainees. i guess my question to youis would the president consider that victory? would that be a substantialfulfillment of his campaign promises? could he use maybelower-level executive actions to extradite thoseor somehow find a place for those?

could we get to zero ornear zero by the end of the president's term? and is that part of thestrategy here to put legal, economic and sort ofpolitical pressure on congress to say, hey, look,we only have a handful now of detainees, even more ofan argument to close the facility? mr. earnest: well, let meanswer that in a couple different ways here.

transferring gitmodetainees who, based on a careful reviewby the president's national security team, are eligiblefor transfer continues to be a high priority. we have seen congressinterfere in that effort. for example, congress hasrequired 30-day notification and specific certificationby the secretary of defense before those transferscan be commenced. that is a lot of red tapeand a lot of bureaucracy

that we have routinelycomplied with. and we're going tocontinue to do that work. now, it also depends upon-- as you point out -- the cooperation of ourallies and partners. there are about 35 countriesthat have agreed to take gitmo detainees. and so it will requirefurther intensive, diplomatic work with thosecountries -- or maybe some others that haven't takenany yet -- to try to find an

appropriate arrangement forthe safe transfer of these individuals. that will continueto be a priority. even in the face ofcontinued congressional obstruction, that's stillgoing to be a priority. primarily because,gregory, as you point out, that is part of our strategyfor closing the prison. what we're looking ahead tois an acknowledgement -- something that you alsoreferred to -- which is that

some of these individualswill not be deemed safe for transfer, and some of theseindividuals cannot be effectively prosecuted inour criminal justice system. and it means that theseindividuals will be subject to a law of war detention. and the case that wehave made to congress, and we're going to continueto make publicly -- we've made it for seven years andwe're going to keep making it -- is thatwe can do that,

keep these individualsdetained under law of war rules in the united statesin a way that removes a potent symbol that is usedby terrorists to recruit. and by bringing them tofacilities that are here in the united states, we canactually detain them under the laws of war in a waythat costs taxpayers a lot less money. so when you considerthose benefits, and when you consider therecommendations of the

secretary of defense, thisis a pretty easy policy decision. and again, we hear a lot ofrepublicans running around for president who say thatthey want to keep america safe, that they want tocut wasteful government spending, and that they wantto follow the advice of our leaders at the pentagon. that's exactly what thepresident is proposing to do with this plan to close theprison at guantanamo bay.

and that's also why i thinkit's notable that there is bipartisan supportfor this plan. certainly,president george w. bush, a republican,believes that the prison at guantanamo bayshould be close. and i noted thatearlier today, his secretary of state,general colin powell, indicated his support forclosing the prison at guantanamo bay.

so this isn't apartisan issue. this is a situationwhere president bush, president obama, ourleaders at the pentagon, and others that have deep,respected experience on these issues all agree thatthis is worthwhile goal. and it could be completedthis year if congress doesn't prevent it. the press: do you have anumber in mind of how many would be subject toindefinite detention even if

the president is able to gothrough all the steps that you just -- mr. earnest: i don't havean estimate at this point. obviously, the periodicreview board is doing its work. and we'll have prosecutorsalso evaluating whether or not these individuals couldbe successfully prosecuted. so those determinations --the determinations by the review board and thedetermination by the prosecutors -- will have animpact on what the final

number looks like. jared. the press: josh, does thepresident believe the constitution prohibitssenators from voting against a nominee to thesupreme court? mr. earnest: no. what the president believeis that the senate, as an institution, has aresponsibility to continue to function and to make surethat the third branch of

government can also continueto function as our founders intended. as i pointed out, it isunprecedented in modern supreme court history for asingle vacancy to have an important act on twodifferent terms of the supreme court. and right now, ifrepublicans in the senate follow throughon their promise, that's theunprecedented result.

and so the president'sexpectation is that the senate, as an institution,will function to prevent that from happening. but here's the thing -- andthis sort of goes back to what michelle was askingabout -- the president is not suggesting that everyounce of politics needs to be drained out of this. over the years, too much --a lot of politics has built up. and the president isrealistic about that and the

president is realistic aboutthe fact that that's more pronounced in anelection year. that's entirelyunderstandable. we know that there's goingto be politics influencing this process. what we can't afford to haveis politics dictating but yet, right now, thatappears to be what's happening. and that's not good forour system of government, and it's certainly notgood for the one branch of

government that's supposedto be most isolated and protected from the influenceof partisan electoral politics. the press: does thepresident believe that the constitution requiressenators to meet with a supreme court nominee? mr. earnest: well,again, since 1875 -- the press: i'm not askingabout the precedent. i understand that there'sa lot of discussion about precedent and history.

i'm asking about theconstitution and what the president assesses -- thebare minimum requirements. because, clearly,based on the politics, as you've been arguing,we're talking about the bare minimum, unfortunately. mr. earnest: well, as theconstitution points out, it's the responsibility ofthe senate to offer the president advice and consenton his supreme court nominee. and it seems quite difficultto do that if you continue

to refuse to evenmeet with that person. i'm not sure that would be-- that their advice and consent would beparticularly well informed. the press: does thepresident acknowledge, then, senators' right to withholdconsent from a nominee? mr. earnest: again, thepresident hasn't even named a nominee. the press: i'm not asking-- we're talking about the basement, the bargainbasement of what

the constitution requires. is withholding a nominee --withholding their approval or their consent froma nominee within each individual senator's right? mr. earnest: again, jared,maybe some of the questions that you're asking could be directed to a constitutional scholar. i think everybodyin this room, and i think many of thepeople watching understand

the expectations that thesenate has based on their constitutional duty toprovide the president advice and consent on hissupreme court nominee. the press: i'm just askingif the white house believes, as many in thesenate have claimed, that they have a right towithhold that consent. do you agree withtheir assessment? mr. earnest: i think myassessment is that most people think that it isunreasonable for republicans

in the united states senateto say that they will not support any nominee thatthe president puts forward, to refuse to meet with anynominee that the president puts forward, to refuse tohold hearings about that -- for that nominee for thefirst time since 1875. again, the american peoplehave an expectation that members of the united statessenate are going to do their job. and again, maybe part oftheir job description does

involve making a decisionafter careful thought and consideration. after listening to hearings,after meeting in private with this individual, maybethey determine that part of their job means voting no. but again, their job doesnot require them to choose someone and only vote yesfor someone who they believe is at the top of theirown personal list. if the person that's at thetop of their personal list

is appointed tothe supreme court, then they shouldrun for president, if they want thatresponsibility. the press: i thinksome of them are. mr. earnest:some of them are. i would point out thatthey're not running for three-year terms, they'rerunning for four-year terms. because whoever is electedpresident in 2016 will take office in january of 2017,and for the next four years

will have the constitutionalresponsibility to appoint individuals to fillvacancies that's the way that oursystem has worked for more than 200 years. and i certainly would expectthat people who claim to be passionate defenders of theunited states constitution would be passionateadvocates for that argument -- unless politicsis interfering. and i suspect that'swhat's happening here.

the press: does the whitehouse have any reaction to senate majority leadermcconnell yesterday saying that he wouldn't commit toan up or down vote on the next president's nomineeto the supreme court? mr. earnest: i don't thinkthat i saw that part of his answer. but i'll just say, ingeneral that, again, what we are seeing is anunprecedented escalation in the politicization of thesupreme court

nomination process. and that, in the viewof this president, is not a good thing. doesn't mean that for thisprocess to succeed that we need to drain every elementof politics out of the equation, but it does meanthat republicans -- who are in the majority, who workedhard to gain the majority of the senate, who vowed whenthey took the majority of the senate to get congressmoving again -- the

president does have anexpectation that the senate, as an institution,will fulfill their responsibility, which meansgiving the president's nominee a timely hearing --a fair hearing and a timely up or down vote. the press: do you haveany reaction to president erdogan saying thatbasically the ypg should not be protected inthe cease-fire? mr. earnest: that is notwhat the government of

turkey committed to in thecontext of the cessation of hostilities. so our expectation is thatthe understanding has been reached. we've got a frameworkfor implementing it. we do anticipate that therewill be some bumps along the way. it will not be a smoothimplementation process. but we have now seen publiccommitments on the part of

the russians and thesyrian government, most importantly, about thesteps that they will take to implement thisunderstanding. the press: president erdoganseems to be backing away from that, and he obviouslyrepresents the government. so would there beconsequences imposed by the united states on turkey ifthey were to go ahead and violate the cease-fireby targeting the ypg? mr. earnest: look,turkey is a nato ally,

and it is an ally thatcan count on the reliable support of the unitedstates of america, particularly in a time framein which the people of turkey have been subjectedto terrorist attacks on their soil. their concern about theirnational security is understandable. but the best way to addressthat concern is for us to address the longstandingpolitical chaos that is

fomenting so much violenceon the other side of their border with syria. that's a problem. and that's one of the manyimportant reasons that the united states has been sodeeply engaged in this diplomatic political effort,because of the negative impact it's having onthe broader region, especially on ournato ally in turkey. the press: so there would beno negative consequences for

turkey if they defied yourwishes and continued to strike the ypg? mr. earnest: our expectationis that everybody who signed up for the cessation ofhostilities understanding will fulfill --willmeet their commitments. and our concern right now ismost directly focused on the russians and onthe syrian regime. they've made someimportant commitments, and we're going to expectthem to meet them.

at the same time, thisprocess is going to be bumpy, and i don't justmean in the first few days, i mean at least inthe first few weeks. but with some perseverance,we are hopeful that we can implement a cessation ofhostilities that will pave the way for advancing thepolitical transition inside of syria, for speedingthe flow of humanitarian assistance, and for anintense focus being placed on our effort to degrade andultimately destroy isil.

the press: could acease-fire actually survive if turkey isn'tplaying ball? mr. earnest: again, ourexpectation is that those who have made commitments inthe context of reaching an understanding about acessation of hostilities, that they'll keepthose commitments. and we have thatexpectation for everybody. thanks, everybody. we'll see you tomorrow.