Day one of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing


>>REMEMBER PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP , THE ONE THING HE TALKED ABOUT
HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS IS GETTING THE FOR SUPREME COURT NOMINEE. WHAT A RECORD-BREAKING , QUICK CONFIRMATION OF NEIL
GORSUCH. NEIL GORSUCH HAS PERFORMED HOW THE PRESIDENT
WOULD WANT. THIS IS THE NEW NORMAL FOR SUPREME COURT
NOMINEES. A LOT GOES INTO CHOOSING THEM. BOTH OBAMA AND
PRESIDENT BUSH AND TRUMP SPENT A LOT OF TIME FINDING NOMINEES
THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE THE RIGHT IDEOLOGY AND BE THERE LEGACY ON
THE COURT. THEY HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL.
>>LET’S GO TO CAPITOL HILL. WE HAVE A COLLEAGUE STANDING BY.
THANK YOU FOR STANDING BY. GREAT TO HAVE YOU JOIN US. YOU HAVE
BEEN COVERING BRETT KAVANAUGH’S TIME ON THE DC CIRCUIT COURT , WHAT RECORD DOES HE HAVE AND
WHAT WILL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BE LOOKING AT TODAY?
>>Reporter: IN PICKING BRETT KAVANAUGH THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION WAS ABLE TO LOOK AT MORE THAN 300 OPINIONS ALL
WHICH SHOW A CONSERVATIVE JUDGE WHO BELIEVES IN A POWERFUL
EXECUTIVE WHO HAS ISSUED A HIGH PROFILE RULING ON ABORTION
RESTRICTIONS AND ALSO TO LOOK AT HIS LEGAL
RATINGS BEFORE THE ON ISSUES OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
>>YOU WERE ABLE TO TALK TO — >>THAT WILL COME UP AT THE
HEARING >>YOU SPOKE WITH PROTESTERS
OUTSIDE. WHO IS OUT THERE? >>Reporter: EARLY THIS MORNING
THERE WAS A LONG LINE OUTSIDE THE SENATE OFFICE BUILDING. I
SPOKE TO SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO CAMPED OUT OVERNIGHT. THERE WERE
BUS LOADS OF PEOPLE COMING IN FROM
NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA. SOME OF THE PEOPLE I SPOKE WITH WERE
COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO SAY, THIS IS A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT THAT
WILL AFFECT THINGS LIKE THEIR REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES, HEALTHCARE
AND THAT’S WHY THEY ARE HERE. EVEN THOUGH THEY RECOGNIZE THE
REALITY OF THE POLITICS IN THE SENATE AND CALCULATIONS THEY
STILL THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO BE HERE TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICIALS
ACCOUNTABLE AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE ASKING TOUGH QUESTIONS.
>>THANK YOU. WE TALKED ABOUT PEOPLE TO WITNESS THIS BUT ALSO
VOICE THEIR CONCERNS OR THEIR PLEASURE WITH THIS DECISION. HOW
INFLUENTIAL IS THAT IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS?
>>NOT VERY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE END RESULT . THE END RESULT IS YOU ONLY
NEED THE MAJORITY IN THE SENATE TO CONFIRM A SUPREME COURT
NOMINEE. THAT IS A NEW RULE. REPUBLICANS HAVE THE MAJORITY.
>>THAT’S A BIG DEAL. YOU HAVE TO GET 60 VOTES TO GET THE
PROCEDURAL THRESHOLDS TO GET YOUR SUPREME COURT NOMINEE. NOW
IT’S ONLY THIS MAJORITY. A CHANGE REPUBLICANS MADE.
>>DEMOCRATS STARTED AND CHANGE THE RULES TO
GET LOWER JUDGES CONFIRM BECAUSE THEY WERE FRUSTRATED WHEN THEY
CONTROLLED THE SENATE THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO GET SOME OF
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NOMINEES THROUGH. THEY CHANGED IT FOR
LOWER COURT JUDGES. LAST YEAR WHEN NEIL GORSUCH WAS UP THE REPUBLICANS THEN IN
CHARGE CHANGE IT FOR SUPREME COURT NOMINEES. IT IS A HUGE
CHANGE. IT MEANS WHICHEVER SITE IS IN CONTROL DOES NOT HAVE TO
LOOK FOR A NOMINEE THAT WOULD APPEAL TO THE
OTHER SIDE. THEY CAN PICK EITHER A STRONG LIBERAL OR A STRONG
CONSERVATIVE AS LONG AS THEY CONTROL THE SENATE AND GET THAT
PERSON THROUGH. NOT ONLY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR PROCEDURES BUT IT
CHANGES THE KIND OF NOMINEE WE ARE GETTING.
>>LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TODAY IN THE REST OF THE WEEK.
WE EXPECT THIS TO BE A WEEK LONG PROCESS. WE WILL BRING YOU LIVE
AND UNDIRECTED COVERAGE AROUND 9:30 AM. TODAY WILL HEAR OPENING
STATEMENTS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, FROM THE RANKING, DIANNE FEINSTEIN AND THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AS WELL AS THE OTHER MEMBERS. WE CAN GO
THROUGH THIS QUICKLY BUT THEY ALL GET THERE TIME TO SAY
SOMETHING. AMBER, DO YOU THINK TO GET A SENSE BY THE END OF TODAY WITH
A POLITICS ARE HEADED. WERE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO FIND
SOME IN ROWS AND REPUBLICAN HOLDING THE LINE?
>>THAT’S WHAT WE WILL BE SEEING. ON THIS COMMITTEE YOU
HAVE A WHO’S WHO OF THE POLITICAL BATTLES. YOU
HAVE THE NEVER CHOMPERS ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE LIKE PEOPLE LIKE
JEFF FLAKE. THEY’RE NOT AFRAID TO CRITICIZED PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP. THAT DOESN’T MEAN THEY WILL VOTE
AGAINST HIS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE BUT COULD USE THIS TO A
NEEDLE THE PRESIDENT AFTER A CONTENTIOUS WEEK LAST WEEK WITH
JOHN McCAIN’S FUNERAL. THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE IS WHERE THE
FIREWORKS ARE. THAT’S BECAUSE THEY ARE FRUSTRATED WITH THIS
PROCESS WHICH IS A MANIFESTATION OF LOSING THE PIVOTAL SUPREME
COURT SEAT. WITHIN THAT GROUP OF DEMOCRATS WHO HAVE A POTENTIAL
2020 CANDIDATE AT LEAST THREE OF THEM WHO I THINK WE USE THIS
MOMENT TO GET NOTICED, THAT MEANS EVEN MORE FIREWORKS.
>>WE’VE GOT CORY BOOKER AND THE OTHER TWO WHO ARE IN THE MIX.
>>AFTER WE SEE OPENING STATEMENTS WE WILL HEAR
INTRODUCTIONS OF JUDGE CAVANAUGH AND HEAR FROM THE MAN HIMSELF.
>>USUALLY IT’S NOT A LONG OPENING STATEMENT FROM THE
NOMINEE. IT IS A CHANCE FOR THE COUNTRY TO HEAR HIM AGAIN. WE
GOT ONLY A BRIEF TASTE OF THAT WHEN PRESIDENT ANNOUNCED HIS
NOMINATION AND AFTER THAT NOMINEE IT WENT UNDERGROUND FOR
A WHILE. THEN THEY MEET PRIVATELY WITH SENATORS. THEY
PREPARE FOR THE HEARINGS. THEY DON’T TALK IN THE PUBLIC. THIS
IS HIS CHANCE TO GET HIS MESSAGE OUT AND THEN THE QUESTIONING
STARTS TOMORROW MORNING AND IT WILL GO ON WE THINK FOR ABOUT 12 HOURS THE
FIRST DAY. >>MORE QUESTIONING ON THURSDAY
AND FRIDAY WILL HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE
NOMINEE. WILL LET YOU GO SEEKING GET TO WORK IN PREPARATION FOR
WITNESSING THIS HEARING TODAY. I WOULD ASK YOU FOR THINGS WE
SHOULD BE WATCHING REX WHAT SHOULD WE BE LISTENING FOR AND WATCHING THE
BODY LANGUAGE OF THE NOMINEE? >>IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE
HOW HE RESPONDS TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE BEING SAID IN
THIS LONG DAY HEARING. IT’S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WHEN WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT REPLACING WHEN JUSTICE WITH ANOTHER, JUSTICE
KENNEDY WAS A REPUBLICAN NOMINEE BY RONALD REAGAN. TWO THIRDS OF
THE TIME HE VOTED WITH HIS FELLOW CONSERVATIVES ON THE
COURT. HE WAS THE OTHER THIRD THAT WERE THE COURTS BIGGEST
DECISION ON ABORTION DESTRUCTION, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION . JUSTICE KENNEDY WROTE ALL OF
THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS INVOLVING AN EXPANSION OF GAY
RIGHTS INCLUDING THE RECOGNITION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR
GAY COUPLES TO MARRY. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT COULD BE A REAL
CHANGE. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD NOT . AS I SAY KENNEDY HAD A LOT OF
CONSERVATIVE VOTES AND KAVANAUGH WOULD BE EXPECTED TO MAYBE BE IN
THE SAME CAMP ON THAT ON ISSUES LIKE CAMPAIGN FINANCE
RESTRICTIONS. A LOT OF REGULAR PEOPLE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
CITIZENS UNITED DECISIONS IN WHICH THEY SAY THEY PUT MORE
MONEY INTO POLITICS. KAVANAUGH AND KENNEDY ARE ON THE SAME SIDE . A SWITCH IS NOT TO MAKE A
DIFFERENCE IN ISSUES LIKE THAT. IT’S IMPORTANT TO THINK ABOUT
WHICH ISSUES KAVANAUGH’S REPLACEMENT COULD CHANGE AND
WHICH ONES WILL BE REINFORCED BY KAVANAUGH.
>>THANK YOU FOR TALKING WITH US. LET’S GO BACK TO CAPITOL
HILL. LEE POWELL IS ON THE HILL. GOOD MORNING LEAGUE. PLEASE SET
THE STAGE FOR US. WHAT IS IT LIKE THERE TODAY?
>>Reporter: I AM IN THE RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING. IT’S THE
RUSSELL ROTUNDA. YOU MAY SEE AND HERE BEHIND ME CREWS THAT ARE
SETTING UP. EVERY CAMERA POSITION YOU CAN HAVE IN THIS RUSSELL ROTUNDA IS
TAKEN. ON ONE SITE I HAVE A BOSTON TELEVISION STATION THAT
WILL BE DOING LIFE REPORTS. ON THE OTHER SIDE I HAVE THE GLOBAL
TELEVISION NETWORK FROM QATAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST. YOU GET AN IDEA
HOW HIGH THE STAKES ARE AND THE INTENTIONS THAT WILL BE BROUGHT
HERE. THIS BUILDING IS TO THE SOUTH OF THE HEART BUILDING
WHERE THE HEARINGS WILL BE TAKING PLACE. CONSIDER RUSSELL WILL BE A SPIN ROOM OF
SORTS. WE DON’T HAVE TO HAVE THOSE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES.
PEOPLE COME INTO A SEPARATE ROOM AND TELL THEIR SIDE OF THE STORE
AND GET THEIR MESSAGE OUT. EXPECT TO SEE THIS MARBLE BACKED
UP BEHIND ME BECOME THAT SPACE WHERE YOU WILL SEE SENATORS AND
OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE A STAKE IN THIS NOT IN THIS CONFIRMATION
SITE SAY THEIR WORDS TO THE WORLD AND THE NETWORKS AS WELL
AS OTHER TELEVISION STATIONS. IT IS POLITICIZED. IT DOESN’T GET
MUCH BIGGER THAN THIS IN WASHINGTON WHEN YOU HAVE A
SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING ESPECIALLY ONE LIKE THIS
ONE BEFORE THE MIDTERMS WHERE MANY PEOPLE EXPECTED DEMOCRATS
TO MAKE A CAMPAIGN ISSUE OUT OF THIS FIGHT . SAYING, THIS IS WHY YOU NEED
TO ELECT DEMOCRATS SO THEY CAN INFLUENCE THESE TRADITIONAL
APPOINTMENTS AND NOMINATIONS. OTHERWISE BIG ISSUES WILL BE
AFFECTED LIKE ABORTION, LIKE PRESIDENTIAL POWER AND REACH AND
REGULATORY REACH OF STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS. ONE LESS
THING I WILL LEAVE YOU WITH IS TO SHOW YOU HOW PUBLICIZE THIS
HAS BECOME, THERE’S A NEW ABC POLL THAT CAME OUT AS WE WERE
STANDING HERE. IT SHOWS ABOUT 39 PERCENT OF THOSE POLLED SAY THAT
KAVANAUGH SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 39 PERCENT SAY HE SHOULD BE DECLINED OR NOT CONFIRMED. THE
REST ARE UNDECIDED. AMONG PULLING THAT’S THE LOWEST
NUMBERS THAT THE POLLSTERS HAVE SEEN IN TERMS OF SUPPORT AMONG
THE PUBLIC. ONLY TWO OTHER SUPREME COURT FIGURES HAD WEAKER
SUPPORTS — SUPPORT AND THAT WAS HARRIET MYERS. SHE WITHDREW HER
NOMINATION AND GOING BACK INTO THE 80s ANOTHER WAS NOT CONFIRMED BY THE
SENATE. YOU CAN SEE DIVIDED NATION, DIVIDED VIEWS ON WHETHER
BRETT KAVANAUGH SHOULD BE CONFIRMED OR NOT.
>>INC. YOU. ALSO ON CAPITOL HILL A WHITE HOUSE REPORTER THAT DOES
HER REPORTING FROM CAPITOL HILL. SHE SEES BOTH ENDS OF THINGS. YOU GOT A
HOLD OF BRETT KAVANAUGH’S OPENING STATEMENTS FOR TODAY.
GIVE US A SENSE WHAT WE EXPECT HIM TO SAY.
>>Reporter: IT STRESSES THE SENSES OF COLLEGIALITY. HE LOOKS
AS THE SUPREME COURT AS A TEAM OF NINE. HEAT MAKES A SHUTOUT TO
GARLAND WHO WAS PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FAILED
PICK FOR THE SUPREME COURT. HE PICKED HIM TO REPLACE JUSTICE
SCALIA BUT MITCH McCONNELL AND REPUBLICANS BLOCKED HIM. IT
GIVES A SENSE THAT I WILL BE A JUDGES JUDGE. WE WILL SEE HOW MUCH MORE
HE WILL HAVE TO SAY IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. DEMOCRATS ARE
GOING TO PRESS HIM ON THESE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES OF ABORTION,
EXECUTIVE POWER, OBAMACARE, GUN RIGHTS SO WE WILL SEE AND ARRAY
OF TOPICS COME OUT AND WE WILL SEE WHAT HE HAS A SAY IN
RESPONSE TO THOSE QUESTIONS STARTING TOMORROW.
>>THANK YOU. ALL OUR REPORTERS WILL BE IN THE HEARING ROOM. WE
TALKED ABOUT OPENING STATEMENTS WHICH SEEMS SIMPLE BUT WILL
CARRY A LOT OF WEIGHT. WILL GET A SENSE WHERE DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS PLAN TO GO IN THERE LANE — LINE OF QUESTIONING THE
REPUBLICANS POSTURE HOW THEY CAN SECURE THIS NOMINEE.
AMBER, THERE IS A LOT OF QUESTIONS HOW THIS WILL
PLAY OUT POLITICALLY NATIONWIDE. YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW REPUBLICANS
ARE HOPING TO BACK A WIN UNTIL VOTERS THEY GOT THIS ONE. WHAT
CAN DEMOCRATS GET OUT OF THIS WEEK? LET’S BE HONEST, UNLESS
SOMETHING SURPRISINGLY HAPPENS IT DOESN’T
LOOK LIKE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO STOP THIS CONFIRMATION PROCESS.
>>EXACTLY. >>WHAT CAN THEY GET OUT OF IT?
>>THEY CAN PLAY TO THEIR BASE AND POLITICS RATHER THAN THE
PROCESS OF WHAT IS GOING ON. THEY WILL LOSE UNLESS SOMETHING
CRAZY HAPPENS. WE DON’T KNOW. ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IN
WASHINGTON. I THINK DEMOCRATS WILL TRY TO PAINT KAVANAUGH AS
SOMEONE UNLIKE WHAT BOB DESCRIBED AS SOMEONE WHO MAY
CHANGE THE DECISIONS ON SOCIAL ISSUES BUT NOT A BROAD
GENERATIONAL SHIFT TO THE RIGHT. THAT COULD HAPPEN LATER.
DEMOCRATS WOULD TRY TO ARGUE THIS IS APOLLO — PAUL —
APOCALYPTIC. THE LAST HIM ABOUT THE 1979 RULING LEGALIZING
ABORTION. WHAT WILL YOU DO IF YOU TRY TO OVERRULE HELLER WHICH IS A
GUN RIGHTS ARGUMENT CASE THAT HAS BEEN SETTLED. BY DOING THAT,
DEMOCRATS WILL TRY TO ARGUE HE IS SUPER CONSERVATIVE AND WHAT
COULD HAPPEN NEXT. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE ARE OTHER RETIREMENTS
AND THE BASE COMES OUT TO VOTE IN DECEMBER — NOVEMBER AND THEY
SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET DEMOCRATS IN CONTROL BLUNT OTHER TRUMPS PICS.
>>YOU CAN SEE ORRIN HATCH THERE. HE’S A REPUBLICAN OF
UTAH. THE CHAIRMAN IS CHUCK GRASSLEY AND THAT TOP DEMOCRAT IS DIANNE
FEINSTEIN. THEY WILL MAKE OPENING STATEMENTS TODAY FIRST.
DEMOCRATS ALSO WANT TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PIN HIM DOWN ON
ISSUES. CAN THEY GET HIM TO COMMIT TO STAYING WITH THE
PRESIDENT OF ROE VERSUS WADE. EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN’T MAKE
THEIR BASE FEEL BETTER OR THEM BETTER IT DOES CREATE A SENSE OF
OBLIGATION AND EXPECTATION ON HOW HE WILL PERFORM ON THE
COURT. >>I DO NOT THINK THEY WILL PIN HIM
DOWN. THEY WILL TRY. THE PEOPLE GUIDING TRUMP COURTS —
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S SUPREME COURT NOMINEE HAVE DONE A GREAT
JOB PERFECTING A NOTHING STRATEGY. THE STRATEGY WE EXPECT
KAVANAUGH TO GO INSANE, I’M NOT SHAKE MY OPINION ON ABORTION
BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE FAIR. WHAT IF SOMEONE CAME TO ME ON
THE COURT AND WERE ABLE TO LOOK THROUGH THE SUPPORT THE SUPREME
COURT HEARING AND HERE I THINK ABORTION IS WRONG. THEY COULD
FRAME THE CASE. HE SAYS HE’S PARTIAL. YOU SEE HEALINGS
CONSERVATIVE BUT TRIES TO GET OUT OF TALKING ABOUT ANY OF
THAT. NOT GIVE DEMOCRATS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PAINT A SENSE OF
URGENCY FOR THEIR BASE BY SAYING, EXACTLY WHAT NEIL
GORSUCH DID. I DO WANT TO HAVE A PREDETERMINED DECISION.
>>HIS DECISION ON EXECUTIVE POWER WILL BE A GREAT INTEREST
TO MANY PEOPLE. THAT’S BECAUSE HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE KEN STARR
INVESTIGATION. AFTER THAT PUBLICLY HE SAID HE HAD CONCERNS
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A PRESIDENT SHOULD BE UNDER THAT MUCH
SCRUTINY AND WHERE THAT PROCESS SHOULD STOP? WHERE IS THE ROLE
OF SPECIAL COUNSEL OR INDEPENDENT COUNSEL? WHY IS THAT
IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW? >>HE WAS INVESTIGATING THE LAST
PRESIDENT TO BE UNDER TERMINAL INVESTIGATION. NOW HE COULD BE
SERVING ON A COURT THAT COULD DECIDE KEY ASPECTS OF A CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION FOR THIS PRESIDENT. HE’S THAN A 180
ACCORDING TO HIS WRITINGS WE CAN LOOK AT ON THE ISSUE OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND POWER. PRESIDENT CLINTON, WE SOUGHT
THIS EXPLICIT MEMO . HE FELT FRUSTRATED. HE FELT
THE PRESIDENT GOT AWAY WITH STUFF WITH LYING ABOUT THE AFFAIR,
DRAGGING THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WITH THIS. HE ADVOCATED FOR
SITTING THE PRESIDENT OUT AND ASKING HIM UNCOMFORTABLE
QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS AFFAIR WITH MONICA LEWINSKY. JUST TO
AGGRAVATE THE PRESIDENT. HE WAS REALLY UPSET. A COUPLE YEARS
LATER HE WRITES IN THE MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW THAT HE THOUGHT
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS WERE A WASTE OF TIME. THEY REALLY WEREN’T A SERVICE TO THE
PUBLIC. THE PRESIDENT HAS MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO THAN TO
SIT DOWN FOR THE EXACT KINDS OF QUESTIONING THAT HE ADVOCATED
PUSHING — PUTTING CLINTON THROUGH IN AN EXTREME WAY. WHAT
THAT MEANS FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, WE DON’T KNOW. THE
SUPREME COURT COULD DECIDE WHETHER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP
COULD GET SUBPOENAED BY SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER. THAT’S A
BIG DEAL. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HAS NOT WANTED TO SIT DOWN WITH
ROBERT MUELLER. THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTED THEY WOULD
THREATEN TO SUBPOENA THE PRESIDENT. THEY DON’T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO
THAT. >>DEMOCRATS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS. THEY WANT TO KNOW HOW FAR HE BELIEVES THESE LIMITS SHOULD
BE PLACED ON THE ABILITY BY THE JUDICIARY, BY BUREAUS LIKE THE
FBI TO LOOK INTO A SITTING PRESIDENT . ALSO TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT
ACCOUNTABLE. THAT’S A BIG CONCERN. THE SENATE MAY SAY THAT KAVANAUGH MAY CHANGE HIS
PERSPECTIVE. NO PRESIDENT WOULD NOMINATE A POTENTIAL SUPREME
COURT PICK IF THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THEY FELT ABOUT THE
PRESIDENCY IN THEIR PAST INVESTIGATIONS.
>>THAT’S A GOOD POINT. TRUMP GOT A CHANCE TO TALK TO HIM
LET’S GO TO LEE POWELL. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN PREPPED SORELY BY
MEMBERS OF THE WHITE HOUSE TEAM, BY OUTSIDERS AND SENATORS. WHAT HAS HE GONE THROUGH?
>>ONE INTERESTING NUGGET THAT CAME OUT IS THE PREPARATIONS
THAT WENT INTO THIS HEARING THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE. THE
PREPARATIONS TOOK PLACE AT THE EISENHOWER EXECUTIVE OFFICE
BUILDING WHICH IS THE OLD BUILDING NEXT TO THE WHITE HOUSE. IT
INVOLVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, FORMER SENATORS AND
STAFFERS PLAYING ROLES DURING A HEARING. KIND OF LIKE A MURDER
BOARD IF YOU WILL IF YOU WERE IN LAW SCHOOL PREPARING BEFORE A
CROSS EXAMINATION. THEY TRIED TO PUT HIM THROUGH THE RINGER IN
TERMS OF ANTICIPATING QUESTIONS, EVEN THE LAYOUT OF THE ROOM IN TERMS OF TABLES, TIMERS AND
LIGHTS TO GO ON IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH TIME YOU HAVE. EVEN
PROTESTERS THAT MAY POP UP IN THE AUDIENCE DURING THE HEARING.
ORRIN HATCH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE PLAYED THE
ROLE OF THE CHAIRMAN DURING THIS MOCK PREPARATION. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN A
JUDGE. HE’S BEEN ON THE BENCH. HE KNOWS HOW THESE THINGS GO. HE
SHOULD BE QUICK ON HIS FEET. HE’S A LAWYER. HE KNOWS HOW THE
GAME IS PLAYED. IT SHOWS EXAMPLE HOW THE WHITE HOUSE IN THIS
SITUATION WILL NOT LEAVE ANYTHING TO CHANCE WHEN IT COMES
TO PREPARING THEIR NOMINEE FOR THIS HEARING.
>>THANK YOU. SOME MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DID NOT MEET WITH KAVANAUGH. THE
NOMINEE GOES AROUND CAPITOL HILL AND TAKES ALL KINDS OF MEETINGS
AND GOES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND HAS CONVERSATIONS WITH SENATORS.
SOME DEMOCRATS SAY I’M NOT MEETING WITH HIM AFTER THE NEWS
CAME OUT ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS FORMER LAWYER, MICHAEL CONE
BEING IN LEGAL TROUBLE, ALSO THE GUILTY VERDICT ON PAUL MANAFORT.
HOW DOES THAT IMPACT TODAY? >>IT’S COMPLICATED. THE END
RESULT WE KNOW THAT DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE AGAINST
KAVANAUGH. THAT BEING SAID YOU ARE CORRECT THAT TRUMP AND HIS
LEGAL TROUBLES ARE A MESS IF — I CAN’T THINK OF A BETTER CLICHÉ
— THERE’S AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. KAVANAUGH COULD BE SOMEONE WHO SITS ON A
HISTORIC SUPREME COURT THAT DECIDES FOR THE FIRST TIME
WHETHER A PRESIDENT CAN BE SUBPOENAED BY A SPECIAL COUNSEL. THERE’S ALSO A LITTLE BIT YOU
GUYS DID THIS TO US AND WE WILL DO THAT TO YOU. WHEN REPUBLICANS
REFUSED TO SIT DOWN WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NOMINEE THEY
WOULD NOT MEET WITH HIM OR HOLD HEARINGS. HE DID NOT GO THROUGH
ANY OF THE STUFF THAT KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO.
>>YOU SEE SENATORS GATHERING. WE ALSO SAW SO MANY DIFFERENT
TOP DEMOCRATS ON THIS COMMITTEE. THERE ARE 11
REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE, 10 DEMOCRATS. IT’S ASSUMED THAT
REPUBLICANS WILL BE ABLE TO VOTE JUDGE KAVANAUGH OUT OF THE
COMMITTEE. RIGHT NOW THE BREAKDOWN OF THE SENATE IS 50-49
BECAUSE THE LOSS OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN.
ONCE THE GOVERNOR OF ARIZONA REPLACES JOHN McCAIN IT WILL BE 51-49. THE CHANCES OF
TWO REPUBLICANS PEELING OFF ARE NOT LIKELY.
>>THERE WAS A SLIGHT POSSIBILITY BEFORE THE HEARINGS
GOT STARTED AND SENATORS MEETING WITH KAVANAUGH. THERE WERE TWO
REPUBLICANS I WAS WATCHING. THEY ARE MODERATES . LISA IS FROM ALASKA. SENATOR
COLLINS IS FROM MAINE. THEY SUPPORT ROE VERSUS WADE. THEY
DON’T WANT THE ABORTION OVERTURNED. THAT WAS ONE OF THE
REASONS THEY DID NOT COME OUT AND SAID THEY SUPPORTED KAVANAUGH.
KAVANAUGH SEEMS TO HAVE WON THEM OVER. SUSAN COLLINS CAME OUT AND
SAID, I THINK HE WOULD NOT OVERTURN ROE VERSUS WADE. HE
BELIEVES IT’S THE LAW OF THE LAND. I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH
THAT. SHE DID SAY I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM BY I DON’T SEE ANY OTHER — BUT I DON’T SEE ANY OTHER
REPUBLICANS THAT MAY FLIP. >>THERE’S SO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS
AROUND. THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL IS THERE TO SUPPORT THE
NOMINEE. CATCHING A LOT OF INTEREST THERE SHAKING HANDS
WITH SOME SENATORS. YOU BRING UP AN APPOINTMENT POINT. I AM
INTERESTED TO SEE IF ANY OF THE REPUBLICANS ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS.
DO YOU GET THEY WILL ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS ABOUT EXECUTIVE POWER? DO YOU FEEL THEY’VE
GOTTEN THEIR ANSWERS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?
>>I’M CURIOUS TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT. IN GENERAL
REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY WILLING TO WORK WITH KAVANAUGH
AND PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP OVER THIS DOCUMENT SITE. HOW MANY
DOCUMENTS HAVE COME OUT WHETHER IT’S A MESS — ENOUGH.
REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN WILLING TO COME TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP
AND KAVANAUGH’S DEFENSE. YOU ARE CORRECT. THERE ARE A FEW
REPUBLICANS IN THIS HEARING THAT ART NO FANS HOW PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP HAS HANDLED THE INVESTIGATION FACING HIM, HAS
ATTACKED ROB ROSENSTEIN FOR APPOINTING
THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER. THIS COULD BE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO SHOW THE — THEIR DISPLEASURE WITH THE
PRESIDENT. >>WE WILL SEE THIS HEARING AND
FILLED IN A FEW MINUTES. WE WILL GO IT TO IT LIVE AND UNDER — ON INTERRUPTED. YOU CAN WATCH
THIS ALL DAY LONG. IF THIS IS YOUR THING, WE WILL HAVE IT ALL
DAY FOR YOU. SEEING SUSAN COLLINS AND SAYING I FEEL OKAY
ABOUT HIS POSITION ABOUT ROE VERSUS WADE WAS A REAL TURNING
POINT. THAT SETTLED IT. I DID NOT HAVE A SENSE THAT LISA
MAKOWSKI WOULD VOTE AGAINST THIS NOMINEE. I DIDN’T SEE A REASON
WHY THIS WOULD CHANGE THAT. THOSE TWO
SENATORS ARE NOT ON THIS COMMUNITY. — COMMITTEE. IS
TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY ARE THE TIMES WE WILL SEE THE
BIG MAKE IT OR BREAK IT MOMENTS. THAT’S WHEN SENATORS GET A
CHANCE TO QUESTION THE NOMINEE AND HE HAS TO ANSWER THEM.
>>TOMORROW WE WILL SEE KAVANAUGH IN THE HOT SEAT AND AS
HE GETS MORE EXHAUSTED THE NEXT DAY, THESE HEARINGS ARE A CHANCE
FOR SENATORS TO SEE THE MAN’S CHARACTER. THAT’S WHEN HE’S
TIRED AND GETTING NEEDLED. HOW DID YOU HANDLE THAT KIND OF
PRESSURE? >>HE’S SOMEONE WHO IS A CREATURE OF
WASHINGTON. HE’S BEEN AROUND THESE PEOPLE FOR A LONG TIME. WE
TALKED ABOUT HOW HE SERVED IN THE KEN STARR INVESTIGATION. A
COLLEAGUE REPORTED HOW KAVANAUGH WAS A SOURCE FOR
JOURNALIST BACK IN THE DAY WHO WERE REPORTING ON THE KEN STARR INVESTIGATION. HE
KNOWS THE PLAYERS IN THIS ROOM. >>I DON’T EXPECT KAVANAUGH TO
STUMBLE AT ALL. HE IS WELL GROOMED FOR THIS MOMENT. ONE
THING, I COULD NOT FIND A PHOTO OF HIM LOOKING WORRIED OR UPSET.
HE ALWAYS HAD THIS HUGE SMILE ON HIM, CALM AND I’VE GOT THIS TYPE
OF LOOK. HE CHAMPIONED HIS FAMILY WHEN PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP ANNOUNCED HIS NOMINATION. >>HE’S A PICTURE OF A POLISHED
JUDGE AND A POLITICIAN WHO IS UNIQUELY SUITED TO HANDLE THIS MOMENT. THERE ARE REPUBLICANS
WHO ARE WORRIED HOW MUCH DOCUMENTS AND HISTORY HE HAS
WORKING IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. I THINK
REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF MAKING SURE THERE’S NOT A LOT
OUT THERE TO PICK UP ON THE CONTROVERSIAL.
>>DEMOCRATIC STAFFERS ARE TRYING TO POUR THROUGH THESE
THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS. REPUBLICAN SAY THERE’S SO MUCH
OUT THERE. DEMOCRATS SAY THAT’S BECAUSE THERE’S SO MUCH MATERIAL
ABOUT HIM AND WE ARE LACKING A GOOD DEAL OF IT. TODAY THE
NOMINEE WILL BE INTRODUCED BY CONDOLEEZZA RIGHT AMONG OTHERS.
NO CENTER — SENATORS CHOSE HIM AS IS CUSTOMARY BECAUSE THEY ARE
DEMOCRATS. YOU CAN SEE HIS FAMILY GATHERED BEHIND HIM. THE
CAMERAS GETTING A CLASSIC PICTURES OF THE NOMINEE AS HE
COMES IN. WE WILL LEAVE YOU IN A MOMENT AS WE BRING YOU LIVE
UNINTERRUPTED COVERAGE. THIS IS DAY 1. WE WILL BE BACK TOMORROW
WHEN THE NOMINEE GETS QUESTIONED, GRILLED BY THE
SENATE AND WE WILL BE BACK FRIDAY WHEN WE EXPECT HIM TO
HAVE OTHERS TALK ABOUT HIM AND SPEAK OF HIM. THANK YOU FOR
WATCHING.>>GOOD MORNING. I WELCOME
EVERYONE TO THIS CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF BRETT KAVANAUGH.
>>MR. CHAIRMAN. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO BE
RECOGNIZED TO ASK A QUESTION BEFORE WE PROCEED. THE COMMITTEE
RECEIVED JUST LAST NIGHT LESS THAN 15 HOURS AGO 50,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT
WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW OR READ OR ANALYZE.>>YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER. I WILL
PROCEED. >>WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD.
>>I EXTEND A WARM WELCOME TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH. TO HIS WIFE
ASHLEY, THEIR TWO DAUGHTERS — >>MR. CHAIRMAN —
>>WE WELCOME EVERYONE ELSE JOINING
US TODAY. THIS IS AN EXCITING DAY FOR ALL OF YOU HERE.
>>IF WE CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED I MOVED TO
ADJOURN. I MOVED TO ADJOURN. >>MR. CHAIRMAN I MOVED TO
ADJOURN. WE HAVE BEEN DENIED REAL ACCESS
TO THE DOCUMENTS WE NEED TO ADVISE —
>>THIS HEARING IS A CHARADE AND A MOCKERY. I THEREFORE MOVED TO
ADJOURN THIS HEARING. [SCREAMING]>>I ASKED FOR A ROLE CALL VOTE
ON MY ADJOURNMENT.>>WE ARE NOT IN THE EXECUTIVE
SESSION. WE WILL CONTINUE AS PLANNED.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I BE
RECOGNIZED. I APPEAL TO THE CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE MYSELF ONE OF
MY COLLEAGUES. >>YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER.
>>EVEN THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE
REQUESTED MR. CHAIRMAN, EVEN THE ONES YOU SAID, THIS COMMITTEE
HAS NOT RECEIVED. THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE, IT SHOULD BE
TRANSPARENT. THIS COMMITTEE IS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN VALUES. THE IDEALS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE,
WHAT IS THE RUSH? WHAT DO WE TRYING TO HIDE BY NOT HAVING THE
DOCUMENTS OUT FRONT? WHAT IS WITH THE RUSH? THIS COMMITTEE IS
A VIOLATION OF THE VALUES THAT WE AS A COMMITTEE HAS DRIVEN
FOR, TRANSPARENCY, WE ARE RUSHING
THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN A WAY THAT IS UNNECESSARY. I APPEAL
FOR THE MOTION TO AT LEAST BE VOTED ON. LET’S HAVE A VOTE.
WHEN WE WROTE YOU A LETTER ON AUGUST 24 ASKING TO HAVE A
MEETING ON THIS ISSUE YOU DENIED US EVEN THE RIGHT TO MEET. HERE WE
ARE HAVING A MEETING. LET’S DEBATE THIS ISSUE, LET’S CALL
THIS FOR A VOTE. I APPEAL TO YOUR SENSE OF FAIRNESS AND
DECENCY AND COMMITMENT YOU HAVE MADE TO TRANSPARENCY. THIS
VIOLATES WHAT YOU HAVE SAID AND CALLED FOR, SIR. YOU CALLED FOR
DOCUMENTS. YOU CALL FOR LIMITED DOCUMENTS. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED
A DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVE CALLED FOR. BASED UPON YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES, YOUR OWN VALUES, I
CALL TO HAVE A DEBATE OR VOTE ON THESE ISSUES AND NOT FOR US
THROUGH — TO RUSH THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
>>I’VE HEARD CALLS FOR — >>I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO
SENATOR BOOKER. SENATOR BOOKER, I THINK I RESPECT VERY MUCH A
LOT OF THINGS YOU DO. YOU SPOKE ABOUT MIKE DECENCY — MY DECENCY
AND INTEGRITY AND I THINK YOU ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MY
DECENCY AND INTEGRITY. [SCREAMING IN THE BACKGROUND]>>IT IS REGULAR ORDER FOR US TO
RECEIVE ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT THIS COMMITTEE IS ENTITLED
TO. MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS ALSO NOT REGULAR ORDER FOR THE
MAJORITY TO PRE-CLEAR OUR QUESTIONS,
DOCUMENTS AND VIDEOS WE WOULD LIKE TO USE AT THIS HEARING.
THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED AND NOT REGULAR
ORDER. SINCE WHEN DO WE HAVE TO SUBMIT THE QUESTIONS AND THE
PROCESS WE WISH TO FOLLOW TO QUESTION THIS NOMINEE ? I WOULD LIKE YOUR
CLARIFICATION. WHY ARE YOU REQUESTING —
>>I ASK THAT YOU STOP SO WE CAN CONDUCT
THIS HEARING THE WEIGHT WE HAVE PLANNED IT. MAYBE IT’S NOT GOING
EXACTLY THE WAY THE MINORITY HAVE IT GO BUT WE HAVE SAID FOR
A LONG PERIOD OF TIME THAT WE WERE GOING TO PROCEED ON THIS
VERY DAY. I THINK WE OUGHT TO GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR WHETHER JUDGE KAVANAUGH SHOULD BE ON THE
SUPREME COURT OR NOT. YOU HAVE HEARD MY SIDE OF THE AISLE
CALLED FOR REGULAR ORDER I THINK WE OUGHT TO PROCEED IN REGULAR
ORDER. THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE
QUESTIONS THE MINORITY LEGITIMATELY IS RAISING. WE WILL
PROCEED ACCORDINGLY. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, UNDER REGULAR
ORDER, MAY I ASK A POINT OF ORDER WHICH IS THAT WE ARE NOW
PRESENTED WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH SOMEBODY HAS DECIDED THAT
THERE ARE 100,000 DOCUMENTS PROTECTED BY EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE. YET THERE HAVE NOT BEEN AN ASSERTION OF PREP — EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE. HOW ARE WE TO DETERMINE WHETHER EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN PROPERLY ASSERTED IF THIS HEARING GOES BY
WITHOUT THE COMMITTEE EVER CONSIDERING THAT QUESTION? WHY
IS IT NOT IN REGULAR ORDER FOR US TO DETERMINE BEFORE THE
HEARING AT WHICH THE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE
NECESSARY WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE THAT
PREVENTS US FROM GETTING THOSE DOCUMENTS IS LEGITIMATE OR
INDEED IS EVEN AN ACTUAL ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS NOT A LEGITIMATE
POINT OF ORDER AT THIS POINT BECAUSE AT THE END OF THIS
HEARING IT’S TOO LATE TO CONSIDER IT.
>>IF I MAY ADD TO THIS, ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE
DOCUMENTS WE’VE RECEIVED, THERE IS NO INTEGRITY. THEY HAVE
ALTERATIONS. EMAILS ARE CUT OFF HALF WAY THROUGH, RECIPIENTS
NAMES ARE MISSING. IN INTEREST TO THIS COMMITTEE
THINGS HAVE BEEN CUT OFF. THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES HAS NOT HAD A
CHANCE TO GET US ALL WE WANT EVEN THOUGH YOU SIT — SET ON
YOUR WEBSITE THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES WOULD ACT AS A CHECK
AGAINST POLITICAL INTERFERENCE. I CHECKED AFTER AND THERE’S NO
CHECK. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES FINISH IT AND
TO HAVE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY 44 YEARS HERE TO HAVE SOMEONE
SAY THERE’S A CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAS
NOT MADE SUCH A CLAIM MAKES EVERYTHING UNDER DOUBT. WHAT ARE
WE TRYING TO HIDE? WHY ARE WE RUSHING?
>>I CAN’T ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BUT I THINK IF I ANSWER THOSE
QUESTIONS IT’S GOING TO FIT INTO THE EFFORT OF THE MINORITY TO
CONTINUE TO OBSTRUCT AND I DON’T THINK THAT IS FAIR TO OUR JUDGE.
IT’S NOT FAIR TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS. LET ME
RESPOND TO THOSE NOW THEN MAYBE WE CAN PROCEED. MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE ARE CHOOSING THE ADMINISTRATION OF USING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO
HIDE DOCUMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE. I WANT TO SAY WHY
THEY ARE WRONG. UNLIKE PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE DURING FAST AND FIERCE IS ONE EXAMPLE. THIS ASSERTION
IS NOT LEGITIMATE. JUDGE KAVANAUGH WAS A SENIOR LAWYER IN
THE WHITE HOUSE. HE ADVISED THE PRESIDENT ON JUDICIAL
NOMINATIONS, PROVIDED LEGAL ADVICE ON SEPARATION OF ISSUES AND HANDLED LITIGATION
MATTERS. AS A SUPREME COURT HAS PUT IT, UNLESS THE PRESIDENT CAN
GIVE HIS ADVISORS SOME ASSURANCE OF CONFIDENTIALITY A PRESIDENT
COULD NOT EXPECT TO RECEIVE THE FULL SUBMISSIONS OF FACTS AND
OPINIONS UPON WHICH THE AFFECTED DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTIES DEPENDS.
THE ISSUES JUDGE KAVANAUGH WORKED ON ARE EXACTLY THE SORT
OF ISSUES THAT REQUIRE ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT SOME
ASSURANCE OF CONFIDENTIALITY. WE IN THE SENATE AND EVERYONE ELSE
IN AMERICA EXPECTS EXACTLY THE SAME SORT OF CONFIDENTIALITY.
MOST SENATORS WOULD NOT AGREE TO TURN
OVER THEIR STAFFS COMMUNICATION TO ANYONE. FOR EXAMPLE, WE DID
NOT ASK JUDGE KAGAN’S RECORDS FOR HER SERVICE DURING HER
NOMINATION. BECAUSE OF ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE EVERYBODY HAS A
RIGHT TO KEEP COMMUNICATIONS FROM THEIR LAWYERS OUT OF
GOVERNING HANDS. WE THEREFORE DID NOT ASK FOR JUSTICE RUTH
BADER GINSBURG DOCUMENTS WITH HER TIME WITH THE ACLU. WE
DIDN’T ASK FOR JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS FROM HER
TIME IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. IT CAN’T BE THE SENATE AND ACLU
ARE ENTITLED TO MORE PROTECTION THAN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES I WILL SPEAK TO THE FACT ABOUT 42,000 PAGES. LAST NIGHT
WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE COMMITTEE’S REVIEW.
THESE WERE DOCUMENTS WE REQUESTED BEFORE THE HEARING AND
WE RECEIVED THEM BEFORE THE HEARING JUST AS WE REQUESTED.
THE MAJORITY STAFF REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS AS SOON AS THEY ARRIVED AND HAS
ALREADY COMPLETED ITS REVIEW. THERE IS NO REASON — THAT’S NO
REASON TO DELAY THE HEARING. WE HAVE RECEIVED AND READ EVERY
PAGE OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S EXTENSIVE PUBLIC RECORD . THIS INCLUDES 12 YEARS OF HIS
JUDICIARY SERVICE ON THE MOST IMPORTANT FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
IN THE COUNTRY WHERE HE OFFERED 307 OPINIONS AND JOINED HUNDREDS
MORE AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN 10,000 PAGES OF JUDICIAL
WRITING. WE ALSO RECEIVED AND READ MORE THAN 17,000 PAGES OF
HIS SPEECHES, ARTICLES, TEACHING MATERIALS, OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT
JUDGE KAVANAUGH SUBMITTED WITH HIS QUESTIONNAIRE. THE MOST
ROBUST QUESTIONNAIRE THIS COMMITTEE HAS EVER ISSUED. OF
COURSE WE RECEIVED AND READ MORE THAN 483,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS
FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S EXTENSIVE EXECUTIVE BRANCH SERVICE. THIS
IS MORE PAGES THAN THE LAST FIVE SUPREME COURT NOMINEES COMBINED.
IN SHORT, THIS COMMITTEE HAS MORE MATERIALS FOR JUDGE
KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION THEN WE HAVE HAD ON ANY SUPREME COURT
NOMINEE IN HISTORY. SENATORS HAVE HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME
AND MATERIALS TO ADEQUATELY ASSESS JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S
QUALIFICATIONS. THAT’S WHY I WILL PROCEED. I KNOW THIS IS AN
EXCITING DAY FOR ALL OF YOU IN — AND THE FAMILY AND ALL THE
PEOPLE CLOSE TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH. YOU ARE RIGHTLY PROUD OF THE JUDGE. THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE GET TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH LATER THIS
AFTERNOON AFTER THIS CONFIRMATION HEARING AND PROCESS IS FINISHED. I
EXPECT JUDGE KAVANAUGH WILL BECOME THE NEXT ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. BEFORE I BEGIN, I WOULD WANT TO
GIVE YOU JUDGE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE YOUR FAMILY.
>>THANK YOU .
>>PUSH THE RED BUTTON. IT’S NOT ON .
>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. I AM HONORED TO BE HERE TODAY WITH MY FAMILY. MY
WIFE ASHLEY, PROUD WEST TEXAN GRADUATE OF ABILENE COOPER HIGH
SCHOOL NOW THE TOWN MANAGER OF OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY WHERE WE
LIVED. OUR DAUGHTERS MARGARET AND LIZA . THANKED THE COMMITTEE FOR
ARRANGING A DAY OFF FROM SCHOOL TODAY. MY MOTHER AND FATHER,
MARTHA AND ED KAVANAUGH. MY AUNT AND UNCLE. MY FIRST COUSINS ROSIE AND
ELIZABETH MURPHY. I’M HONORED TO BE HERE, HONOR TO HAVE MY FAMILY
HERE, I’M HERE BECAUSE OF THEM. THANK
YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. >>WE ARE DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOUR
FAMILY HERE. BEFORE I MAKE MY OPENING REMARKS, I WANT TO SET
OUT THE GROUND RULES FOR THE HEARING. I WANT EVERYONE TO BE
ABLE TO WATCH THE HEARING WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION. IF PEOPLE
STAND UP AND BLOCK THE VIEW OF THOSE BEHIND THEM OR SPEAK OUT
OF TURN IT’S NOT FAIR OR CONSIDERATE TO OTHERS. OFFICERS
WILL IMMEDIATELY REMOVE THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND I THINK THE OFFICERS FOR
DOING THE WORK THEY HAVE TO DO. WE WILL HAVE 10 MINUTE ROUNDS OF
OPENING STATEMENTS WITH EACH MEMBER, THE RANKING MEMBER AND I
MAY GO OVER 10 MINUTES. I WILL ASK EVERYONE ELSE TO LIMIT YOUR
REMARKS TO THOSE 10 MINUTES. I HOPE EVERYONE WILL RESPECT THAT.
WE PLAN ON TAKING A 15 MINUTE BREAK AFTER SENATOR CRUISE’S OPENING STATEMENT.
AFTER ALL THE OPENING STATEMENTS BY SENATORS ARE COMPLETE, WE
WILL TAKE ANOTHER 15 MINUTE BREAK TO TURN TO OUR INTRODUCERS
WHO WILL FORMALLY RESENT THAT JUDGE. AFTER THAT I WILL
ADMINISTER THE OATH TO THE JUDGE AND WE WILL CLOSE THAT PORTION
OF TODAY’S HEARING WITH HIS TESTIMONY.
>>MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN WILL WE REVIEW SENATOR BLUMENTHAL’S
MOTION TO ADJOURN?>>I RENEW MY MOTION TO ADJOURN.
WE ARE ENTITLED TO A VOTE ON IT. THE RESPONSE IS FLYING IN THE
FAITH OF THIS COMMITTEE. >>IF I MAY ADD AN ADDITIONAL
POINT. IT IS STRIKING GIVEN YOUR LONG HISTORY TO TREAT MINORITY
REQUEST EQUAL WITH MAJORITY — REQUEST. THAT YOU DISCOURAGE THE NATIONAL
ARCHIVES FROM RESPONDING TO RANKING MEMBER FEINSTEIN’S
REQUEST WHICH SHE TRY TO CRAFTER THE TO BE IDENTICAL FOR JUSTICE KAGAN. WE SHOULD NOT BE
PROCEEDING UNTIL WE HAVE THE FULL DOCUMENTS THAT ALLOW US TO
REVIEW THE JUDGES RECORDS. >>LAST FRIDAY WE LEARNED
102,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S WORK IN THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S OFFICE ARE BEING WITHHELD FROM THE
COMMITTEE AND THE PUBLIC BASED ON A CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL
PRIVILEGE. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HAS NEVER BEEN INVOKED TO BLOCK
THE RELEASE OF PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS TO THE SENATE DURING A
SUPREME COURT NOMINATION. THIS INCLUDES WENT JUST THIS ELANA
KAGAN WAS LIMITED TO SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS JUSTICE JOHN
ROBERTS. MY COLLEAGUES AND I SENT A LETTER TO THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL ASKING THE PRESIDENT WITHDRAW HIS CLAIM OF
PRIVILEGE OVER THESE DOCUMENTS SO THEY CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THIS COMMITTEE AND TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE. WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THAT
LETTER. WE SHOULD NOT BE PROCEEDING UNTIL WE HAVE A
RESPONSE AND THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE. IT IS
102,000 DOCUMENTS. >>THERE IS NO VALID CLAIM HERE OF
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE EVEN IF THERE WERE ONE IT HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY ASSERTED. THE QUESTION
IS, WHAT IS THE ADMINISTRATION AFRAID OF SHOWING THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE? WHAT IS IT TRYING TO HIDE?
>>MR. CHAIRMAN USING YOUR OWN WORDS, YOU SAID WE’VE HAD MORE
THAN ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS. WE GOT A DOCUMENT
DUMP LAST NIGHT. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY NOT ONE SENATOR HAS HAD
TIME TO READ THROUGH THOSE 40,000 PAGES. WE ARE CONTINUING
TO RUSH THROUGH THIS PROCESS. A PROCESS THAT DESERVES TO BE SUED
— SCRUTINIZE. I SUPPORT SENATOR BLUMENTHAL’S MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>>UP HARD-PRESSED TO FIND A COURT IN THE COUNTRY THAT WOULD
NOT GIVE A PARTY LITIGANT A CONTINUANCE WHEN THE PARTY ON
THE OTHER SIDE GOT A 42,000 PAGE DOCUMENT DUMP AFTER CLOSE OF BUSINESS THE
NIGHT BEFORE TRIAL. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WAITED FOR
MORE THAN A YEAR WITH A VACANCY ON THE SUPREME COURT UNDER THE
DIRECTION OF YOUR UNITED STATES SENATE. THE PUBLIC SURVIVED. THE
TREATMENT WAS SHABBY OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NOMINEE. THE
FACT WE CANNOT TAKE A FEW DAYS OR WEEKS TO HAVE A COMPLETE
REVIEW OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S RECORD IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR
RESPONSIBILITY WITH ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
>>MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL BE BRIEF. I
WOULD SAY THE WHITE HOUSE SUGGESTED WE
WOULD HEAR THIS HEARING AS A COURT OF LAW. I WOULD SUGGEST IF
THIS WERE A COURT OF LAW THAT VIRTUALLY EVERY MEMBER WOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF
COURT BECAUSE THIS PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CIVIL ONE
WHERE PEOPLE GET TO ASK QUESTIONS AND WE GET TO GET
ANSWERS. THAT’S THE BASIS UPON WHICH WE ARE TO EXERCISE OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF ADVICE AND CONSENT. I WOULD
SUGGEST WE GET ON WITH THE HEARING.
>>IF MY COLLEAGUE —
>>IF I COULD RESPOND TO THAT. >>YOU CAN’T RESPOND IN A
MINUTE. >>IF PEOPLE WONDER WHY THE
CHAIR IS SO PATIENT DURING THIS PROCESS, I HAVE FOUND IT TAKES
LONGER TO ARGUE WHY YOU SHOULD NOT DO ANYTHING THEN LET PEOPLE
ARGUE. THESE THINGS WILL BE SAID THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING. WE ARE
GOING TO BE IN SESSION TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY,
SATURDAY AND SUNDAY UNTIL WE GET DONE. HOWEVER LONG PEOPLE WANT
TO TAKE, WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY
ACCOMMODATE ALL OBSTRUCTIONS BUT IF PEOPLE HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY,
THIS CHAIRMAN WILL LET THEM SAY. IT GETS BORING TO HEAR THE SAME THING ALL THE
TIME. SENATOR BOOKER, MAKE IT QUICK.
>>I APPRECIATE THE CHANCE. THE QUESTION WAS WHY WOULD WE WANT
TO DELAY THIS? THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO DELAY. THIS IS AN
ATTEMPT TO BE FULLY EQUIPPED TO DO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY WHICH
EVERYONE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS TAKE SERIOUSLY. IT IS
VERY HARD TO PERFORM OUR ROLE, ADVICE AND CONSENT WHEN WE DO
NOT HAVE A THOROUGH VETTING OF THE BACKGROUND OF THE CANDIDATE.
IN AREAS WHERE THE CANDIDATE HIMSELF HAS REFERRED TO AS THE
MOST FORMATIVE, PART OF HIS LEGAL CAREER WHERE HE HIMSELF
TALKED ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THIS PERIOD OF HIS LIFE IS. WE ARE
DENIED THE FULL VETTING. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THE
DEMOCRATS ARE ASKING FOR. I REMIND YOU, YOU YOURSELF ASK FOR
A LIMITED SET OF DOCUMENTS FOR WHEN HE WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL’S OFFICE. YOU YOURSELF TOOK THAT STANDER. EVEN ON THAT
LIMITED STANDARD, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS. EVEN THE
DOCUMENTS WE RECEIVED ONLY 7 PERCENT OF THEM. HALF OF THOSE
HAVE BEEN LABEL COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL. THEY CANNOT BE PUT
BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHICH FURTHER UNDERMINES AND INHIBITS
OUR ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS TO THOROUGHLY VET THIS CANDIDATE
AND ADVISE AND CONSENT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
JUST ON THE BASIC IDEALS OF FAIRNESS, THE TRADITIONS OF THIS
BODY, WE SHOULD HAVE A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF THE NOMINEE
THAT IS PUT BEFORE US SO WE CAN VET THEM
TO GO INTO THIS HEARING WITHOUT THOSE DOCUMENTS IS AN
UNDERMINING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE TO WHICH WE
ALL HAVE SWORN AND OATH TO UPHOLD.>>MR. CHAIRMAN I HAVE GREAT
RESPECT FROM MY COLLEAGUE. >>I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO
SENATOR BOOKER. SENATOR FEINSTEIN HAS ASKED FOR THE
FLOOR. I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO
SENATOR BOOKER. SENATOR BOOKER, USING A STANDARD SET BY TWO
MEMBERS OF YOUR POLITICAL PARTY IN THE CAUCUS , I’M GOING TO PHRASE BECAUSE I
DON’T HAVE THE EXACT QUOTES, RECENTLY SENATOR SCHUMER SET
FROM THE FLOOR THE BEST JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE SHOULD BE
ON THE SUPREME COURT IS DECISIONS THEY’VE MADE OF LOWER
COURTS. WHEN SONIA SOTOMAYOR WAS BEFORE
US, WE KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN A LOWER COURT. THAT’S THE
BEST BASIS FOR KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD BE ON THE
SUPREME COURT. WE HAVE 307 CASES THAT THIS NOMINEE HAS WRITTEN
DECISIONS ON AS A BASIS FOR THAT AND WE HAVE 488 THOUSAND OTHER
PAGES — 488,000 OTHER PAGES AND MAYBE
SENATORS HAVE NOT READ THEM BUT THE STAFF HAS BEEN INFORMED.
LAST NIGHT ON THE 42,000 PAGES THAT HAVE
COME TO OUR ATTENTION, THE STAFF ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE HAS GONE
THROUGH THAT. >>WHAT DID YOU ASK FOR THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DOCUMENTS? >>SENATOR FEINSTEIN.
>>MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY , I’VE BEEN THROUGH NINE SUPREME
COURT HEARINGS. >>IS THIS YOUR OPENING
STATEMENT? >>IS PART OF IT.
>>YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER.
>>I ASK IN THE PROCESS WITH REGULAR ORDER WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND .
>>I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SENATOR FEINSTEIN SPEAK.
>>I WAS GOING TO SAY SOME THINGS. I HEARD THIS IS MY NINTH
HEARING. I THINK WE’VE GOT TO LOOK AT THIS AS UNIQUE
CIRCUMSTANCES. NOT ONLY IS THE COUNTRY DEEPLY DIVIDED
POLITICALLY, WE ALSO FIND OURSELVES WITH A PRESIDENT WHOSE
FACE IS ON A SERIES PROBLEM. OVER A DOZEN CABINET MEMBERS AND
SENIOR AIDE TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HAVE RESIGNED, BEEN FIRED
OR FAILED THEIR CONFIRMATION UNDER CLOUDS OF CORRUPTION,
SCANDAL AND SUSPICION. THE PRESIDENTS PERSONAL LAWYER,
CAMPAIGN MANAGER, DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER AND SEVERAL
CAMPAIGN ADVISORS HAVE BEEN ENTANGLED BY INDICTMENT, GUILTY
PLEAS AND CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS. IT’S THIS BACKDROP THAT THIS
NOMINEE COMES INTO WHEN WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS HE WITHIN THE
MAINSTREAM OF AMERICAN LEGAL OPINION AND WILL HE DO THE RIGHT
THING BY THE CONSTITUTION? WE ARE ALSO EXPERIENCING THE
VETTING PROCESS THAT HAS CAST ASIDE TRADITION IN FAVOR OF
SPEED. WHEN JUSTICE SCALIA DIED REPUBLICANS REFUSED TO MEET IN
THEIR OFFICE WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NOMINEE AND HELD THE
SEAT OPEN FOR ONE YEAR. NOW WITH THE REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE THEY’VE
CHANGED THEIR POSITION. THE MAJORITY RUSHED INTO THIS
HEARING AND IS REFUSING TO EVEN LOOK AT THE NOMINEE — NOMINEE’S
FULL RECORD. IN FACT, 93 PERCENT OF THE RECORDS FROM KAVANAUGH’S
TENURE IN THE WHITE HOUSE AS COUNSEL AND STAFF SECRETARY HAS
NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE SENATE. 96 PERCENT HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN
TO THE PUBLIC. WE DO KNOW WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE THINKS OF THIS
NOMINEE. DON McGANN THE WHITE HOUSE CANCEL SPOKE TO THE
FEDERAL SOCIETY AND MADE CLEAR BRIGHT KAVANAUGH IS EXACTLY THE
KIND OF NOMINEE THE PRESIDENT WANTED. IN A SPEECH HE DISCUSSED
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S TWO LIST OF POTENTIAL SUPREME COURT
NOMINEES. ONE HE SAID WAS FILLED WITH MAINSTREAM CANDIDATES. THE
OTHER LIST INCLUDED CANDIDATES THAT WERE TOO HOT FOR PRIME
TIME. THE KIND THAT WOULD BE HOT IN THE SENATE. PROBABLY PEOPLE
WHO HAVE WRITTEN A LOT. WE GET A SENSE OF THEIR VIEWS. THE KIND
OF PEOPLE THAT MAKE PEOPLE NERVOUS. THAT’S A QUOTE. WHAT I
AM SAYING, THIS IS THE BACKDROP INTO WHICH WE COME INTO THIS SITUATION. THERE IS
FRUSTRATION ON THIS SIDE. WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE
PRIOR NOMINEE. THE LAST ONE PRESIDENT OBAMA PRESENTED TO US.
HE NEVER GOT A MEETING. HE NEVER GOT A HEARING. HE NEVER GOT A
PHONE. NOW THE RUSH TO JUDGMENT AND THE INABILITY TO REALLY HAVE
A CIVIL AND POSITIVE PROCESS ENDS UP BEING THE RESULT. I
REGRET THIS. I THINK YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION ON
THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE. EVERYONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE WANTS
TO DO A GOOD JOB. THEY WANT TIME TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER WHAT THE
FINDINGS ARE. THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF EMAILS AND
OTHER ITEMS WHICH COULD CONSTITUTE FINDINGS . A WHOLE HOST OF MAJOR SUBJECTS
THAT THIS NOMINEE MAY BE FACED WITH AND THEY ARE SERIOUS. THE
TORTURE ISSUES, ALL OF THE ENRON ISSUES HE’S BEEN THROUGH. ALL OF
THE KINDS OF THINGS WE WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT. UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE COMING FROM. IT’S
NOT TO CREATE A DISRUPTION. IT’S NOT TO MAKE THIS A BAD PROCESS. IT IS TO SAY
MAJORITY GIVE US THE TIME TO DO OUR WORK
SO WE CAN HAVE A POSITIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE HEARING ON THE MAN
WHO MAY WELL BE THE DECIDING VOTE FOR MANY OF AMERICAN DISH
AMERICA FUTURE. >>I ASK FOR A SECOND MOTION TO
ADJOURN. >>I ASK FOR A VOTE MR.
CHAIRMAN. I ASKED WE CONVENE. >>WE ARE HAVING A HEARING . IT’S OUT OF ORDER. WE ARE NOT
IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT WOULD BE THE PROPER FORM FOR
ENTERTAINING MOTIONS. >>I EXECUTIVE WE RECONVENE IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION. >>WE WON’T VOTE ON THE
SUGGESTION. WE WON’T FOLLOW YOUR SUGGESTION. MOTIONS WOULD NOT BE PROPER AT
THIS TIME. >>IT’S A PENDING MOTION BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE.>>MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THERE IS NO
VOTE ON THIS MOTION WHICH BEEN PROPERLY SECONDED AND GIVEN A
VOTE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, THIS PROCESS WILL BE TAINTED AND STAINED FOREVER. I AM ASKING
AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, IT’S MY RIGHT TO DO SO THAT WE
VOTE ON MY MOTION TO ADJOURN AND SENATOR HARRISON’S MOTION TO
POSTPONE AND WE DO IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WHICH CAN BE
EASILY AND QUICKLY CONVENED RIGHT NOW.
>>NO. THE MOTION IS OUT OF ORDER.
>>I MAKE A CLEAR AND SIMPLE MOTION TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE
SESSION. >>THE MOTION IS OUT OF ORDER.
>>THEY ARE NOT OUT OF ORDER. THEY ARE PROPERLY BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE. SIMPLY SAYING SO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AND I HAVE GREAT
RESPECT FOR THE CHAIRMAN DOES NOT MAKE THEM OUT OF ORDER JUST
BECAUSE THAT CHAIRMAN RULES IT OUT OF ORDER. WE HAVE A NUMBER
OF EXCELLENT LAWYERS IN THIS ROOM. I ASK THAT THIS BODY NOW
DO WHAT ITS RESPONSIBILITY IS, THAT’S TO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE
SESSION TO VOTE ON A MOTION TO ADJOURN AND THEN WE CAN
DELIBERATELY AND THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDER THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN PRESENTED AND ALSO REVIEW THE COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN MARKED CONFIDENTIAL. >>THE MOTION IS DENIED.
>>HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE? 10 MINUTES FOR US TO HAVE A VOTE ON
THIS PROCESS. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RUSH IS THAT WE CAN’T
LET SENATORS VOTE ON A VERY IMPORTANT MOTION. I DON’T UNDERSTAND IT. WHAT IS
THE RUSH? WHAT ARE WE AFRAID OF? IT’S JUST TO HOLD A VOTE ON THE
MOTIONS BEFORE US. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. CHEN AND —
CHAIRMAN . I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
PROCESS. I UNDERSTAND MY COLLEAGUES WANT AND THEY FEEL
STRONGLY ABOUT THIS. WHAT ARE GOING TO BE THE GROUND RULES
TODAY? WE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO INTERRUPT EACH OTHER? INTERRUPT
A WITNESS? SHOULD WE SEEK RECOGNITION FROM THE CHAIR?
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE GROUND RULES?
>>PROPER RESPECT AND DECORUM PLUS HOW WE HAVE DONE NORMALLY
BUSINESS IN A HEARING LIKE THIS. WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING ALL THESE
MOTIONS. YOU ARE NEW TO THE SENATE. THIS IS SOMETHING I’VE
NEVER GONE THROUGH IN 15 SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS THAT I HAVE
BEEN HERE FOR. EVERY MEMBER — I WAS INTERRUPTED BEFORE I GOT A
CHANCE TO SAY WHAT THE AGENDA WAS FOR TODAY. EVERY MEMBER WILL
GET 10 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR REMARKS AND THEN WE WILL GO TO
THE INTRODUCERS OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH. THERE WILL
BE THREE OF THOSE. THEY WILL TAKE THE TIME TO INTRODUCE. THEN
WE WILL HAVE THE SWEARING IN OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND WE WILL HAVE
HIS OPENING REMARKS. THEN WE WILL ADJOURN FOR TODAY. WE WILL
RECONVENE AT 9:30 AM ON WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY. EACH
MEMBER WILL HAVE 30 MINUTES TO ASK QUESTIONS OR MAKE ALL THESE
POINTS THEY ARE MAKING RIGHT NOW FOR THE FIRST ROUND. THEN THERE
WILL BE A SECOND ROUND OF 20 MINUTES EACH. EVERY MEMBER WILL
GET 50 MINUTES TO ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS OR MAKE ALL THE
STATEMENTS THEY WANT TO MAKE IN REGARD TO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS
CANDIDATE OR ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THIS MEETING IS BEING CONDUCTED.
THEN WE WILL GO LATE INTO WEDNESDAY NIGHT OR THURSDAY
NIGHT UNTIL WE GET DONE WITH THE QUESTIONING OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH.
ON THURSDAY WE WILL HAVE THREE PANELS OF SIX EACH EVENLY
DIVIDED FOR PEOPLE THAT THINK JUDGE KAVANAUGH SHOULD BE ON THE
SUPREME COURT AND PEOPLE THAT THINK HE SHOULD NOT BE ON THE
SUPREME COURT. HOPEFULLY WE GET THAT DONE FRIDAY. WILL IF WE
HAVE TO GO SATURDAY AND SUNDAY WE WILL GO SATURDAY AND SUNDAY
UNTIL WE GET IT DONE. >>ESTHER CHAIRMAN, HOW CAN WE
— >>DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION? >>YES MR. CHAIRMAN. I APPRECIATE
IT. IF I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, DO I NEED TO BE RECOGNIZED BY
THE CHAIR? >>THAT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE
HANDLED. I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO I WILL BE PATIENT BECAUSE IF YOU
ARE NOT PATIENT AND ARGUE WHY SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE IT
TAKES LONGER JUST TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE. I
DON’T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE SAME THINK THREE
OR FOUR TIMES. >>PATIENCE IS GOOD MR.
CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE ROLES.
>>YOU SHOULD BE RECOGNIZE. YOU CAN UNDERSTAND I HAVE BEEN
PATIENT AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE NOT BE RECOGNIZED AND SPEAK ANYWAY
BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS BE A PEACEFUL SESSION.
>>BEFORE I TRY YOUR PATIENCE, I’M DONE.>>I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT
GROUND RULES. THE QUESTION IS, BEFORE WE CAN PROCEED, I WOULD
LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER THE MAJORITY IS REQUIRING OF ALL THE
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE TO PRECLEARED THE
QUESTION DOCUMENTS AND VIDEOS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO USE AT
THIS HEARING? >>I WAS HOPING ON THE SUBJECT
THAT YOU JUST BROUGHT UP THAT WE WOULD HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION
WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO APPROACH. I’M NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER HAS BEEN AND I DON’T WANT
YOU TO GIVE ME WHAT YOU THINK THE ANSWER HAS BEEN OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN OUR STAFF
ON THAT SUBJECT. >>I DON’T THINK IT’S BEEN THE
CASE THAT A HEARING LIKE THIS THAT THE MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE HAVE TO PRECLEARED WHAT WE PROPOSE TO QUERY THE
NOMINEE ABOUT. THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED.
>>IF WE DON’T — >>I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO
SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO. >>THE REASON WE ARE HAVING THAT
DISCUSSION IS AT LEAST ON MY TIME AND FOR 15 NOMINATIONS,
WE’VE NEVER HAD A REQUEST FOR A VIDEO. IT SEEMS TO BE ME TO BE COURTEOUS TO ALL THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. IT WOULD BE NICE TO NOTE THE
PURPOSE AND WHAT IT MAY CONTAIN. ANY QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK
YOU CAN ASK. IT’S NOT ABOUT WHAT QUESTIONS YOU WERE GOING TO ASK.
IT’S ABOUT THE PRESENTATION OF SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER BEEN A
PART OF A SUPREME COURT HEARING IN THE PAST.
>>I THINK I WILL GO BACK AND
FORTH. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I’M CONFUSED. I
HEARD EARLIER THIS WAS A REACTION TO THE DOCUMENT
RELEASES LAST NIGHT. I’M REVIEWING A TWEET FROM NBC THAT
SAID DEMOCRATS PLOTTED COORDINATED PROTEST STRATEGY OVER THE
HOLIDAY WEEKEND ALL AGREE TO DISRUPT AND PROTEST THE HEARINGS
SOURCES TELL ME. SUBSEQUENT THEM LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER LET A PHONE CALL COMMITTEE
MEMBERS ARE EXECUTING NOW. I WANT TO BE CLEAR NONE OF THE
MEMBERS ON THIS COMMITTEE PARTICIPATED IN THAT PHONE CALL
OR STRATEGY BEFORE THE DOCUMENTS WERE RELEASED YESTERDAY? ARE YOU
SUGGESTING THIS ALLEGATION IS FALSE?
>>THERE WAS A PHONE CONFERENCE
YESTERDAY. I CAN TELL YOU AT THAT TIME MANY ISSUES WERE
RAISED. ONE ISSUE WAS OVER 100,000 DOCTORS RELATED TO JUDGE
KAVANAUGH HAVE BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY THAT CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE AS
COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL. I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN
LIMITED TO EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.
IF SOMEONE IS ACCUSED OF TAKING DRUGS DURING THE COURSE OF
INVESTIGATION AND I’M NOT MAKING THAT IS THE CASE OR CLOSE TO IT.
IT WAS DONE IN A CONFIDENTIAL SETTING. SAME THING ON DUIS AND A LIGHT.
WE USE AN EXTREMELY RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE WE WOULD MEET
AFTER THIS COMMITTEE HEARING AND SIT DOWN AND IT USUALLY RELATED
TO A HANDFUL OF PAGES OR A HANDFUL OF DOCUMENT REFERENCES.
INSTEAD WHAT WE FOUND NOW IS WE ARE SEEING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF DOCUMENTS CHARACTERIZED AS COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL
UNILATERALLY. IS NOT DONE ON A BY PART DISH BIPARTISAN BASIS.
WHEN DISCUSSION WAS THIS QUESTIONED WHETHER THIS
COMMITTEE IS GOING TO HEAR A NOMINEE FOR A
LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND
WITHOUT ACCESS TO BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT HIS PUBLIC
RECORD. HIS PUBLIC RECORD A SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
35 MONTHS OF PUBLIC SERVICE. WE’VE BEEN TOLD IT CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED. I WOULD SAY TO THE SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA , THERE’S A CONVERSATION
YESTERDAY ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS. I HAVE NO IDEA THAT 11:00 LAST
NIGHT 42,000 MORE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE PUT ON TOP OF US AND BE
ASKED TO TAKE THEM UP TODAY. IT ADDED INSULT TO INJURY.
>>I ASKED TO BE RECOGNIZE. THE CHAIRMAN SHALL ENTERTAIN A NON-DEBATABLE MOTION
TO BRING A MATTER BEFORE A COMMITTEE TO A VOTE IF THERE’S
OBJECTION TO BRING THE MATTER TO A VOTE WITHOUT FURTHER DEBATE A
ROLLCALL OF THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE TAKEN. I ASKED FOR A VOTE ON MY MOTION
TO ADJOURN UNDER RULE 4. THESE ARE RULES THAT WE ARE OBLIGATED
TO FOLLOW. THE CHAIRMAN HAS NO RIGHT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO
OVERRIDE THEM. >>WE ARE OBLIGATED BY THAT RULE
IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE ARE NOT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. I WOULD
RESPOND TO THE ISSUES BROUGHT UP BY
SENATOR DURBIN ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS. I WAS
CRITICIZED FOR MY DECISION TO RECEIVE SOME DOCUMENTS ON
COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL BUT I AM DOING EXACTLY WHAT I DID DURING
THE OTHER CONFIRMATION AND WHAT CHAIRMAN LEAHY DID DURING
JUSTICE KAGAN’S. THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF TREATING REGULAR
COMMITTEE PRACTICES SOMEHOW OUT OF THE ORDINARY. PRESIDENTIAL
RECORDS THAT WE RECEIVED OFTEN CONTAIN HIGHLY SENSITIVE ADVICE
TO THE PRESIDENT AS WELL AS PERSONAL PRIVACY INFORMATION
LIKE FULL NAMES, DAY OF BIRTH, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND
ACCOUNT NUMBERS. LIKE MY PREDECESSOR, I AGREED TO RECEIVE
SOME PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS AS COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL SO BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
COULD BEGIN REVIEWING JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S MATERIALS MUCH
EARLIER. I DON’T KNOW WHY IT MY DEMOCRAT COLLIES OBJECT TO
RECEIVING DOCUMENTS FASTER. NOT ALL OF THESE PRESIDENTIAL
RECORDS REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. IN FACT NEARLY TWO THIRDS ALREADY
BECAME PUBLIC. THESE RECORDS ARE POSTED ON THE COMMITTEE’S PUBLIC
WEBSITE AND AVAILABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AS A RESULT WE
PROVIDED UNPRECEDENTED PUBLIC ACCESS TO A RECORD NUMBER,
PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS AND DID IT IN RECORD TIME. THE MOST
SENSITIVE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS REMAIN COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL
UNDER FEDERAL LAW JUST AS THEY WERE DURING THE NOMINATIONS OF
KAGAN AND NEIL GORSUCH. WE’VE EXPANDED ACCESS TO THESE
DOCUMENTS ALSO. INSTEAD OF PROVIDING ACCESS TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS WE PROVIDED ACCESS TO ALL 100 SENATORS. INSTEAD OF
JUST PROVIDING ACCESS TO A FEW COMMITTEE AIDES, WE PROVIDED
ACCESS TO ALL COMMITTEE AIDES. INSTEAD OF JUST PROVIDING ACCESS
TO PHYSICAL BINDERS OF PAPER, WE PROVIDED 24/7 DIGITAL AND
SEARCHABLE ACCESS. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS TO COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD MY STAFF SET UP WORKSTATIONS AND HAVE BEEN
AVAILABLE 24 SEVEN TO HELP SENATORS — 24/7 TO HELP
SENATORS BUT NOT ONCE — ONE SENATOR SHOWED UP.
SENATORS COMPLAIN ABOUT LACK OF ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS WERE NOT INTERESTED IN SEEING
THEM. I WANT TO EMPHASIZE MORE DOCUMENTS ARE WIDELY AVAILABLE
THAN AN — IN ANY OTHER SUPREME COURT NOMINATION. TO THE ISSUE
ABOUT HIDING COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS. SOME
COLLEAGUES AND YOU HAVE HEARD IT THIS MORNING ACCUSED HIDING DOCUMENTS. THEY ARE
SUGGESTING SOME OF THE COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS CONTAIN
INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE OF GREAT INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC.
JUST AS I DID LAST YEAR DURING JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH IT’S
CONFIRMATION I PUT A PROCESS IN PLACE THAT WOULD ALLOW MY
COLLEAGUES TO OBTAIN THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS FOR USE DURING THE HEARING. ALL I ASK WAS MY
COLLEAGUES TO IDENTIFY THE DOCUMENTS THEY INTENDED TO USE
AND I WOULD WORK TO GET THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FORMER PRESIDENT
BUSH TO AGREE TO WAIVE RESTRICTIONS ON THE DOCUMENTS.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN SECURED THE PUBLIC 19 DOCUMENTS LAST YEAR
UNDER THIS PROCESS. IF MY COLLEAGUES TRULY
BELIEVE THAT OTHER COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS SHOULD
HAVE BEEN MADE PUBLIC, THEY NEVER TOLD ME ABOUT THEM AND
REQUEST THE ONES THEY WANTED. INSTEAD OF SCARING THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE BY SUGGESTING WE ARE HIDING SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS, THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE
A REQUEST THAT I WORK TO GET THE COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL
DESIGNATION REMOVED. THIS YEAR I RECEIVED NO SUCH REQUEST EXCEPT
FOR SENATOR — THAT SHE WANTED TO USE FOR
THE HEARING. >>YOU STATED IN ADEQUATELY AND I HAVE A
RIGHT. >>I SAID I WAS PARAPHRASING.
>>IT WAS ONE HECK OF A PARAPHRASE. WHEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT DOING THE
SAME THING WITH ELANA KAGAN. I WAS CHAIRMAN WHEN ELANA KAGAN
WAS HERE. WE HAD 90 PERCENT OF HER RECORDS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
THAT WERE MADE PUBLIC 12 DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING. WITH JUDGE
KAVANAUGH WE HAVE 7 PERCENT AND ONLY 4 PERCENT ARE PUBLIC. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
PAGES BUT THE FACT IS 99 PERCENT OF ELANA KAGAN 12 DAYS BEFORE
THE HEARING. IT WAS ALL AVAILABLE. JUDGE KAVANAUGH IT’S
7 PERCENT AND ONLY 4 PERCENT MADE PUBLIC. WE’RE GOING TO ARGUE WHAT WAS
PRESIDENT — PRESIDENT — PRESIDENT, WHAT IS BEING DONE
HERE IS AN PRESIDENT. KEEP COMING BACK TO THE SAME
QUESTION. WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO HIDE? WHAT ARE WE HIDING? WHAT
IS BEING HIDDEN? WHY NOT HAVE IT OPENED LIKE ALL OTHERS. ONLY ONE OTHER TIME WE HEARD AND
EVOKE ACTION WITH PRESIDENT TALK — RONALD REAGAN. REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS WANT HIM AND SAID DON’T DO THAT. HE SAID YOU ARE
RIGHT. HE WITHDREW HIS REQUEST FOR EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. AND
RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS. I AM SORRY TO SEE THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO SEND THIS WAY. THIS IS NOT THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE I SAW WHEN I CAME TO THE COMMITTEE.
>>COULD I PLEASE RESPOND. AFTER I GET THAT I WOULD GIVE THE
EXACT QUOTE THAT I WAS PARAPHRASING. WE HAVE JUDGE
SONIA SOTOMAYOR FROM THE FEDERAL BENCH. THAT IS A PUBLIC RECORD
THAT WE HAD EVEN BEFORE SHE WAS DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT.
JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR’S MAINSTREAM RECORD OF JUDICIAL
RESTRAINT AND MODESTY IS THE BEST INDICATION OF HER
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY. WE DO NOT HAVE TO IMAGINE WHAT KIND OF A
JUDGE SHE WILL BE BECAUSE WE SEE WHAT KIND OF A JUDGE SHE HAS
BEEN. THAT’S WHY MY ANSWER TO THE GOLD STANDARD OF WHETHER
SENATOR KAVANAUGH SHOULD BE ON THE SUPREME COURT BASED UPON
WHAT DEMOCRATS THEMSELVES HAVE SET IS THE BEST JUDGE OF WHETHER
YOU SHOULD BE ON THE SUPREME COURT.
>>YOU MENTIONED WHAT I SAID. ON JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, I
DID SAY WE SHOULD LOOK AT HER CASE JUST AS WE SHOULD ON JUDGE
KAVANAUGH. BUT, BUT YOU NEGLECT TO MENTION AND I THINK NO ROGUE LOOSELY
REJECT IMAGINE THAT REPUBLICANS ASK FOR FOUR MINUTES FROM HER
WORK AND A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP IN THE 19 80s. LONG BEFORE SHE WAS
EVEN CONSIDERED AS A JUDGE. YOU ASKED FOR THAT. WE GOT IT FOR
YOU. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU CALLED ON
ME. >>WE HAVE 488,000 PAGES OF
DOCUMENTS.>>JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR NEVER
WORKED IN THE WHITE HOUSE’S ASSENT — SO NONE OF THESE ARE
RELEVANT. WHILE I APPRECIATE YOU GRANTING MY REQUEST, ON THESE
CAMPAIGN DOCUMENTS THIS IS ALL THEY WERE.
THIS IS HOW MANY PAGES. YET WE HAVE HUNDRED 48,000 DOCUMENTS
THAT WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT PUBLICLY. I WILL SAY THEY ARE
ILLUMINATED. IT SHOWS THE NOMINEE HAS A LIMITED VIEW OF
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IN HIS OWN WORDS HE SAID HIS VIEWS ON
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ART. WHEN IT COMES TO THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT MORE IN THE FUTURE. I DO HAVE A
QUESTION. THAT IS I ASKED FOR THESE DOCUMENTS BUT ALSO AT
GOTTEN SEVERAL LETTERS ASKING THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE
HAVE IN THE COMMITTEE BEAT MADE PUBLIC SO WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
FINALLY MY INITIAL POINT THAT I AM SO
FOCUSED ON THE 102,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S WORK IN THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE MR. CHAIRMAN, IF
YOU HAVE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A TIME WHEN EXECUTIVE HER VILLAGE
WAS INVOKED TO BLOCK THE RELEASE OF PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS TO THE
SENATE DURING A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION. AS FAR AS MY
RESEARCH SHOWS THIS WAS NOT DONE FOR JUSTICE KAGAN OR JUSTICE ROBERTS. YOU HAVE
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT DURING A SUPREME COURT NOMINATION
HEARING? >>IT WAS DONE FOR JUSTICE
ROBERTS .
>>HE WAS A SOLICITOR GENERAL. DURING THE TIME THEY WORKED IN
THE WHITE HOUSE, THAT IS MY QUESTION.
>>I BELIEVE I HAVE THE FLOOR. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIR FOR
RECOGNIZING ME. I HAVE NOT BEEN IN AS MANY CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
AS SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES. THIS IS A FIRST CONFIRMATION HEARING
FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE I HAVE SEEN ACCORDING TO MOM RULE. WE
HAVE RULES IN THE SENATE. WE HAVE NORMS FOR DECORUM. EVERYONE
WILL GET A CHANCE TO HAVE THEIR SAY. YOU’VE GIVEN EVERYONE A
CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS UP TO 50 MINUTES. YOU’VE GIVEN THEM A CHANCE TO MAKE AN OPENING
STATEMENT. ANYONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES CAN TALK TO THE PRESS
AND MAKE WHATEVER COMMENTS THEY WANT TO THE PRESS AND TELL THE
WORLD HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THIS. THE FACT IS, IT’S HARD TO TAKE
IT SERIOUSLY WHEN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE HAVE
ANNOUNCED THEIR OPPOSITION TO THIS NOMINEE EVEN BEFORE TODAY’S
HEARING. IT’S HARD TO TAKE SERIOUSLY THEIR CLAIM SOMEHOW
THEY CANNOT DO THEIR JOB BECAUSE THEY’VE BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO
ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE DARKNESS WHEN THEY’VE MADE UP
THEIR MIND BEFORE THE HEARING. THERE’S NOTHING FAIR ABOUT THAT.
WE WOULD ASK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BE
ABLE TO LISTEN TO THIS NOMINEE, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE . I THINK THAT’S HOW WE SHOULD
PROCEED AND I HOPE WE WILL. >>CAN I BE RECOGNIZE TO RESPOND
SPECIFICALLY TO THAT COMMENT. THERE IS PRECEDENT. THERE ARE
RULES THAT GUIDE US. WE ARE ASKING FOR THOSE RULES TO BE
FOLLOWED. IN THE PAST OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE HAVE ASKED FOR A POSTPONEMENT OF THESE
PROCEEDINGS WHEN DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN DENIED ON TWO OCCASIONS
FROM SENATOR SESSIONS THEN SENATOR SESSIONS AND SENATOR
KYLE. THOSE REQUESTS WERE GRANTED. WE ARE ASKING THAT THAT
PRECEDENT BE FOLLOWED MR. CHAIRMAN. FAR FROM MAMA RULE, WE
ARE ASKING FOR RESPECT TO THE NORMAL REGULAR ORDER.
>>I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS
COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL’S ISSUE ONE MORE TIME. YOU’VE EXPLAINED
YOUR POINT OF VIEW. HERE’S WHAT WE KNOW. THE CHAIRMAN, CHAIRMAN
GRASSLEY IS MY FRIEND AND HIS REASON FOR YOU NOT RALLY
DESIGNATING 147,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS AS COMMITTEE
CONFIDENTIAL IS BECAUSE THAT WAS THE CONDITION THAT BILL BURKE
IMPOSED ON THE PROVISION OF THE DOCUMENTS WHEN JUDGE KAVANAUGH WAS IN MY
OFFICE, MEETING WITH US, I ASKED HIM WHO IS BILL BURKE? BY WHAT
AUTHORITY CAN HE RESTRICT THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO THAT
JUDICIARY SENATE COMMITTEE? IS HE A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE? NO ONE KNEW THIS MYSTERIOUS BILL
BURKE WHO IS FILTERING THESE DOCUMENTS. I FIGURED SINCE THE
NOMINEE CARRIES THE CONSTITUTION IN HIS POCKET THERE MUST BE
REFERENCE TO BILL BURKE. IT SAYS ADVICE AND CONSENTED TO SENATE.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE MR. BURKE. BY WHAT AUTHORITY IS THIS MAN
HOLDING BACK HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE? WHO IS HE? WHO IS PAYING HIM? COMMITTEE
CONFIDENTIAL IS BEING DETERMINED BY A MAN, A PRIVATE ATTORNEY AND
WE DON’T KNOW WHO HE WORKS FOR OR WHO HE’S ACCOUNTABLE TO. HUNDRED 47,000 PAGES HAVE BEEN
DESIGNATED BY BILL BURKE AS OUTSIDE THE REACH OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. THAT’S A FURTHER EXAMPLE WHY THIS PROCESS HAS
GONE ASTRAY. I THINK YOUR EXPLANATION IGNORES THAT.
>>MR. CHAIRMAN —
>>WHO WANTS THE FLOOR? >>THE NEW SENATOR.
>>GO AHEAD. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW MANY
DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED? >>488,000 OTHER THAN 28,000 PAGES THAT
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH HAS SUBMITTED INCLUDING HIS OWN JUDICIARY
OPINIONS. >>A WEEK IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
OR NOT? >>WE ARE HAVING A HEARING ON
THE NOMINATION OF A NOMINEE FOR THE SUPREME COURT. WE ARE NOT IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION. >>AT SOME POINT WILL WE HEAR
FROM THE NOMINEE? >>HOPEFULLY BEFORE 2:30 PM.
PROBABLY OUT LATER. >>THANK YOU.
>>MR. CHAIR .
>>CAN I ASK MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, HOW
LONG YOU WANT TO GO ON WITH THIS BECAUSE I’M NOT GOING TO
ENTERTAIN ANY OF THE MOTIONS YOU ARE MAKING. WE ARE NOT IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION. I THINK WE SHOULD LEVEL WITH THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE. DO YOU WANT THIS TO GO ON ALL DAY BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN
PATIENT. I’VE BEEN ACCUSED OF HAVING A MOB RULE SESSION. IF WE
HAVE A MOB RULE SESSION IT’S BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN IS NOT
RUNNING THE COMMITTEE PROPERLY. SINCE EVERYONE OF YOU ON THAT
SIDE OF THE AISLE EXCEPT SENATOR BOOKER AND EVERYONE OF YOU
PREFACED YOUR COMMENTS HOW FAIR I WAS IN RUNNING THE NEIL
GORSUCH HEARING. THIS IS THE SAME CHUCK GRASSLEY THAT RAN THE
NEIL GORSUCH HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO RUN THAT — THIS HEARING THE SAME WAY IF YOU GIVE ME THE
COURTESY OF DOING IT. HOW LONG DO YOU WANT TO GO ON?
>>I WOULD MAKE ONE MORE POINT. THE ACCUSATION THAT THIS IS A MARBLE HEARING
WAS MADE BY YOUR COLLEAGUE FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS. I THINK YOU
HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING THIS IN A RESPECTIVE — RESPECTFUL WAY. HOW DOES THE DOCUMENT REQUEST
WAS HANDLED. A REQUEST WAS SENT TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES.
RANKING MEMBER FEINSTEIN TRY TO WORK
WITH YOU TO SEND AN IDENTICAL REQUEST TO THE NATIONAL
ARCHIVES. BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE QUESTIONING, I SIMPLY WOULD
LIKE TO HAVE A SETTLED HEART WHY YOU CHOSE TO COMMUNICATE
DIRECTLY TO THE ARCHIVES NOT TO RESPOND TO THE RANKING MEMBER’S
REQUEST. MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HAVE RAISED ISSUES
ABOUT AN UNPRECEDENTED PROCESS BY WHICH DOCUMENTS WERE BLOCKED,
BY THEY WERE CONSIDER CLASSIFIED AND BY WHICH WE HAVE BEEN
BLOCKED FROM BEING ABLE TO SHARE THEM WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OR
ASK QUESTIONS BASED ON THE. THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED. THAT’S WHY AS
YOU PUT IT THIS SIDE SEEKS TO RAISE ISSUES
TO ESTABLISH GROUND RULES BEFORE WE PROCEED.
>>YOU ASKED AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION. I HAVE AND ANSWER. I
DON’T KNOW IF IT WILL SATISFY YOU OR NOT. THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE
THE LEAST USEFUL IN UNDERSTANDING HIS LEGAL VIEWS
AND THE MORRIS — MOST SENSITIVE TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. LET ME
EXERCISE THE MOST SENSITIVE TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THE STAFF
SECRETARY SERVES AS AN INBOX, OUTBOX TO THE OVAL OFFICE. YOU WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK
THE NOMINEE HIMSELF WHAT HE DID THEN BUT I AM GIVING YOU MY
JUDGMENT ABOUT BEING A PERSON THAT PRIMARILY WAS RESPONSIBLE
FOR MANAGING THE PAPER THAT CROSSES THE PRESIDENTS DESK. HIS
JOB AND IF I’M WRONG HE CAN SATISFY YOU OTHERWISE. HIS JOB
WAS TO MAKE SURE THE PRESIDENT SEES — SEEKS THE ADVICE OF
OTHER ADVISORS NOT AS STAFF SECRETARY PROVIDING HIS OWN
ADVICE. ONE OF PRESIDENT CLINTON’S STAFF DESCRIBE THE JOB
THIS WAY. THE STAFF SECRETARY’S JOB IS NOT TO INFLUENCE THE
PRESIDENT BUT TO ENSURE HE GETS A BALANCED DIET OF VIEWPOINTS
FROM ALL RELEVANT PEOPLE ON THE STAFF. YOU CERTAINLY ARE NOT
TRYING TO PUT THE THUMB ON THE SCALE BETWEEN OPTIONS. REVIEWING JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S STAFF
SECRETARY DOCUMENTS WOULD TEACH US NOTHING ABOUT HIS LEGAL
VIEWS. FOR THAT, WE HAVE THE 307 OPINIONS HE WROTE AND THE
HUNDREDS MORE JOINED TOTALING MORE THAN 10,000 PAGES OF
JUDICIAL WRITINGS. WE ALSO HAVE MORE THAN
17,000 PAGES OF SPEECHES, ARTICLES, TEACHING MATERIALS AND
OTHER MATERIALS THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH ATTACHED TO HIS 120
PAGE WRITTEN RESPONSE WHICH I THINK WAS THE MOST ROBUST
QUESTIONNAIRE EVER SUBMITTED TO A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE. WE ALSO HAVE MORE THAN
480,000 PAGES OF EMAILS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FROM JUDGE
KAVANAUGH’S SERVICE AS AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH LAWYER. THIS IS HALF A MILLION PAGES OF
PAPER. MORE THAN THE LAST FIVE CONSERVED SUPREME COURT NOMINEES
COMBINED. IN ADDITION TO NOT SHEDDING LIGHT ON KAVANAUGH’S
LEGAL VIEWS THE STAFF SECRETARY DOCUMENTS ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. LET’S EMPHASIZE THE WORD SENSITIVE.
THESE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN HIGHLY, CONFIDENTIAL ADVICE INCLUDING
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVICE THAT WENT DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT
FROM HIS ADVISORS. IT WOULD THREATEN THE CANDOR OF FUTURE
ADVICE TO PRESIDENTS IF ADVISORS KNEW THEIR ADVICE WOULD BE
BROADLY DISCLOSED. SENATORS HAVE MORE DOCUMENTS FOR JUDGE
KAVANAUGH THAN ANY NOMINEE IN SENATE HISTORY. DEMOCRATIC
LEADERS ARE INSISTING ON GETTING DOCUMENTS, I THINK IT’S A WAY OF
NOT HAVING THIS HEARING TAKE PLACE AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME.
CAN I PROCEED MEMBERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?
>>AFTER YOU ARE DONE CAN I
PROCEED? >>I WILL DEFER TO MY
COLLEAGUES. AS A POINT OF INFORMATION, WE SENT A LETTER TO
MR. CHAIRMAN SEVEN DAYS AGO REGARDING THE COMMITTEE
CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE DOCUMENTS AND ASKED THEY WOULD
NOT BE DESIGNATED COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL. AS
ANOTHER POINT OF INFORMATION, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE ARE 6
TO 7 MILLION PAGES OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING THIS NOMINEE. IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE REQUESTED 10 TO 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL. I
APPRECIATE THERE ARE A LOT OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS BUT WE HAVE
TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TOTAL. THE FACT
THAT WE’VE ONLY BEEN GIVEN BY YOUR REQUEST 10 TO 15 PERCENT OF
THOSE DOCUMENTS. MY FINAL POINT IS THIS, THIS IS A HEARING ABOUT
WHO WILL SIT ON THE HIGHEST COURT OF OUR LAND. THIS IS A
HEARING THAT IS ABOUT WHO WILL SIT IN A
HOUSE THAT SYMBOLIZES OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE IN THIS COUNTRY. SOME
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
SYSTEM OF JUSTICE IS THAT WE HAVE DUE PROCESS AND WE HAVE
TRANSPARENCY. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE PUBLIC COURT ROOMS. THAT’S
WHY WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS IN COURTS OF LAW IN OUR COUNTRY.
BOTH PARTIES WILL BE GIVEN ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION. WE CAN
ARGUE THEN IS TO THE WEIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS AND THE
SIGNIFICANCE BUT NOT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE
ADMISSIBLE. I OBJECT, I ASKED THAT WE RENEW AND REVISIT
SENATOR BLUMENTHAL’S MOTION TO SUSPEND OR MY MOTION TO
POSTPONE THIS HEARING. THANK YOU.
>>THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE COURTESY OF THE DEMOCRATS FOR ME
TO PROCEED. >>MAY I HAVE ONE LAST
OPPORTUNITY. >>PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>>I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME THE FLOOR. I’VE MADE A MOTION
THAT IS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. THE CHAIRMAN SAID
EARLIER THAT HE HAS NEVER BEEN THROUGH THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS
LIKE THIS ONE. THE REASON IS THAT NO ADMINISTRATION IN THE
PAST HAS ENGAGED IN THIS KIND OF CONCEALMENT. THAT’S THE REASON.
IT IS NOT THE CHAIRMAN’S DOING NECESSARILY. IT IS THIS
ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS CONCEALED AND HIDDEN DOCUMENTS
FROM US AND FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I RENEW MY MOTION THAT
WE ADJOURN SO THAT WE CAN ACCESS THE DOCUMENTS WE NEED, REVIEW
THEM IN A DELIBERATE AND THOUGHTFUL WAY. MUCH HAS BEEN
DONE FOR COLLEAGUES IN THE PAST WHEN THEY HAVE REQUESTED IT. AS
IS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 4 OF OUR RULES, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT
THAT WE BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO FOLLOW THIS RULE MR.
CHAIRMAN. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT WE FOLLOW OUR RULES THAT WE
PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE NORMS. I KNOW CHAIRMAN HAS GREAT
RESPECT FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT, WHISTLEBLOWERS, SUNLIGHT AS THE BEST
DISINFECTANT AND WE NEED SOME LIGHT IN THIS PROCESS. THANK
YOU. I RENEW MY MOTION TO ADJOURN WHICH HAS BEEN SECOND.
>>THE NIGHT BECAUSE WERE NOT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. I WILL
PROCEED. >>I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
CORRECTION. THERE’S A MISCONCEPTION AS TO WHAT WHITE
HOUSE STAFF SECRETARIES DO. TWO PAST SECRETARIES RULED , STAFF SECRETARIES ARE NOT
TRAFFIC COPS. STOP TREATING KAVANAUGH AS HE WAS
ONE. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HIMSELF HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE TIME HE WAS WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY. WHY YOU AND
OTHERS ON YOUR SIDE KEEP SAYING THIS IS A NOTHING KIND OF A JOB , NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM
THE TRUTH, THIS IS WHY WE ARE SO ADAMANT ABOUT REQUESTING THESE
DOCUMENTS THAT THE JUDGE HIMSELF, THE NOMINEE HIMSELF HAS
SAID ARE THE MOST FORMATIVE TIMED OF HIS ADULT LIFE.
>>OF COURSE THAT’S WHY WE HAVE THIS HEARING. JUDGE KAVANAUGH
WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION ABOUT
HIS ROLE IN ALMOST ANYTHING HE’S DONE IN HIS LIFETIME, I ASSUME.
>>MR. CHAIRMAN, MAYBE RECOGNIZE.
>>WILL YOU BE THE LAST ONE OR GO ON ALL AFTERNOON?
>>I CANNOT SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES. I WANT TO ANSWER IN THE MOST
PLAIN SPOKEN WAY I CAN DO. WE ARE EXPECTED TO EVALUATE A
NOMINEE. HE HAS A VAST RECORD. A LOT OF NUMBERS HAVE BEEN CITED.
THE ENTIRE BODY OF HIS RECORD , WE ONLY HAVE 10 PERCENT OF HIS
RECORD TO EVALUATE. 90 PERCENT OF IT HAS BEEN WITHHELD FROM
SENATORS. WE ARE ASKING TO EVALUATE A CANDIDATE TO HAVE INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS
AND INSIGHT INTO HIS RECORD BUT WE ONLY HAVE 10 PERCENT OF THAT
RECORD. WE CAN GO ON AND ON WITH THE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS BUT THE
FACT IS WE ARE ABOUT TO PROCEED WITH A HISTORIC HEARING . WE ARE ABOUT TO PROCEED TOWARD
HAVING A HEARING ON SOMEONE HAVING A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT ON
THE MOST IMPORTANT COURT IN THE LAND THAT WILL AFFECT SO MANY
AMERICAN LIVES FROM CIVIL RIGHTS, WOMEN’S RIGHT, ACCESS TO
HEALTHCARE AND WE ARE GOING INTO THIS ONLY HAVING 10 PERCENT. THAT SEEMS TO BE THAT 90 PERCENT
IS MISSING. COMMON SENSE SAYS WE
SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THOROUGHLY EVALUATE THIS PERSON. WE ARE NOT
ASKING FOR ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY. OTHER CANDIDATES HAVE
COME BEFORE, WE HAVE GOTTEN FAR MORE FOR EVERY SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE THAT HAS BEEN MENTION. FAR MORE THAN 10 PERCENT. MY
COLLEAGUE TALK ABOUT WHAT THE DUTY IS TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
IS. IT’S TO EVALUATE A CANDIDATE ON
THEIR BODY OF WORK. WE ARE NOT GETTING THAT. WHY? SOME
POLITICAL PERSON NOT A PERSON WHO HOLDS PUBLIC OFFICE IT’S
UNPRECEDENT TO THINK THIS COMMITTEE HAS GONE TO AN OUTSIDE LAWYER.
WE ARE ABOUT TO GO FORWARD WITH 10 PERCENT OF THIS PERSON’S
RECORD TO EVALUATE TO BASE OUR QUESTIONS ON, TO INVESTIGATE. 90
PERCENT IS BEING HELD. COMMON SENSE WOULD SAY THAT IS NOT
FAIR, THAT IS NOT RIGHT, IT UNDERMINES OUR ABILITY TO DO OUR
JOB. IT IS PLAIN WRONG. >>WHAT OF THE CENTERS MOST
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY IS TO PROVIDE ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT
ON THE NOMINATION JUSTICES. WE ARE HERE THIS WEEK TO HEAR FROM
BRETT KAVANAUGH. TO HEAR ABOUT HIS EXCEPTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.
HIS RECORD TO DEDICATION TO THE RULE OF LAW AND TO HIS
DEMONSTRATED INDEPENDENCE AND HIS APPRECIATION TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. INDEED TO PROTECT
INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, THE FRAMERS DESIGNED A GOVERNMENT OF THREE
EQUAL BRANCHES STRICTLY SEPARATING LEGISLATIVE,
EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL POWERS. THE FRAMERS INTENDED FOR THE
JUDICIARY TO BE IMMUNE FROM THE POLITICAL PRESSURES THE OTHER
TWO FACE. THAT IS SO THAT JUDGES WOULD BE SITE CASES ACCORDING TO
THE LAW AND NOT ACCORDING TO POPULAR OPINION. NOW 230 YEARS
AFTER RATIFICATION OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD . IT PROVIDES OUR PEOPLE
STABILITY, PREDICTABILITY, PROTECTION OF OUR RIGHTS AND
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE BUT THIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN JUDGES ARE
COMMITTED TO THE RULE OF LAW. OUR LEGAL SYSTEMS SUCCESS IS
BUILT ON JUDGES ACCEPTING THEIR ROLE IS LIMITED TO THE CITING
CASES AND CONTROVERSIES. A GOOD JUDGE EXERCISES HUMILITY AND
MAKES DECISIONS ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE CASE AND OF COURSE ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
A GOOD JUDGE NEVER BASES HIS DECISION ON HIS
PREFERRED POLICY PREFERENCES. A GOOD JUDGE ALSO HAS COURAGE
RECOGNIZING WE HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY
TO RESTRAIN JUDGES WHEN THAT GOVERNMENT EXCEEDS LAWFUL
AUTHORITY. PRESIDENT ANDREW JACKSON SAID, ALTHOUGH RIGHT
SECURED TO THE CITIZENS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ARE WORTH
NOTHING AND A MERE BUBBLE EXCEPT GUARANTEED TO THEM BY AN
INDEPENDENT AND VIRTUOUS JUDICIARY. CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
FOR SUPREME COURT NOMINEES ARE AN INDEPENDENT AND VERY
IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS APPROPRIATE ROLES OF JUDGES. AS
I SEE IT, AND I EXPECT MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL AGREE, THE
ROLE OF THE JUDGE IS TO APPLY THE LAW AS WRITTEN EVEN IF THE
LEGAL RESULT IS NOT ONE THE JUDGE PERSONALLY LIKES. JUSTICE
SCALIA BEING QUOTED BECAUSE HE WAS FOND OF SAYING IF A JUDGE
ALWAYS LIKES THE OUTCOME OF THE CASES HE DECIDES, HE’S DOING
SOMETHING WRONG. I DON’T WANT JUDGES WHO ALWAYS REACH A
LIBERAL RESULT OR CONSERVATIVE RESULT. I WANT A JUDGE WHO RULES
THE LAW THE WAY THE LAW REQUIRES. JUDGES MUST LEAVE
LAWMAKING TO THE CONGRESS. THE ELECTORAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
PEOPLE. JUDGES AND JUSTICES HAVE LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS. THEY
CANNOT BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE IF THEY LEGISLATE WHERE AS CONGRESS
LEGISLATE SOMETHING THE PEOPLE DON’T LIKE THEN YOU CAN VOTE
THEM OUT OF OFFICE. THAT’S WHY YOU INTERPRET THE LAW AND NOT MAKE LOT. SOME HAVE A
DIFFERENT VIEW OF WHAT A JUDGE’S ROLE SHOULD BE. ACCORDING TO
THIS VIEW JUDGES SHOULD DECIDE CASES BASED UPON PARTICULAR
OUTCOMES IN ORDER TO ADVANCE THEIR POLITICS. THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE DON’T WANT THEIR JUDGES TO PICK
SIDES BEFORE THEY HEAR A CASE. THEY WANT A JUDGE WHO RULES
BASED UPON WHAT THE LAW COMMANDS. THIS IS THE REASON WHY
ALL SUPREME COURT NOMINEES SINCE GINSBURG HAVE DECLINED TO OFFER
THEIR PERSONAL OPINIONS ON THE CORRECTNESS OF PRECEDENT.
SEEKING ASSURANCES FROM A NOMINEE ON HOW HE WILL VOTE IN
CERTAIN CASES OR HOW HE VIEWS CERTAIN PRESIDENT UNDERMINES
INDEPENDENCE AND ESSENTIALLY ASKS FOR A PROMISE IN EXCHANGE
FOR A CONFIRMATION VOTE. IT’S UNFAIR AND UNETHICAL WHAT LILY
KATE COULD EXPECT A FAIR SHAKE IF THE JUDGE HAS PREJUDGED THE
CASE BEFORE THE LYTIC IT EVEN ENTERS THE COURTROOM I EXPECT
JUDGE KAVANAUGH, IT’S MY ADVICE TO HIM TO FOLLOW THE EXAMPLES OF
JUDGE VINCE BURKE AND ALL THE NOMINEES THAT FOLLOW HER. AND
NOMINEE SHOULD OFFER NO HINTS, NO FORECAST, NO PREVIEWS ON HOW
THEY WILL VOTE. JUSTICE KAGAN WHEN ASKED ABOUT ROE VERSUS WADE
SAID THE FOLLOWING, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE
FOR ME TO COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF ROE VERSUS WADE OTHER THAN TO
SAY IT’S THE LAW ENTITLED TO PRESIDENTIAL
WEIGHT. THE APPLICATION OF ROLE TO FUTURE CASES AND EVEN ITS
CONTINUED VALIDITY ARE ISSUES LIKELY TO BECOME BEFORE THE
COURT IN THE FUTURE. SENATORS WERE SATISFIED WITH THESE
ANSWERS UNPRECEDENTED. SENATORS SHOULD BE SATISFIED IF JUDGE
KAVANAUGH ANSWERS SIMILARLY. THIS IS MY 15th SUPREME COURT
CONFIRMATION HEARING SINCE I JOINED THE COMMITTEE IN 1981. 31
YEARS AGO DURING MY FOURTH SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION
HEARING, LIBERAL OUTSIDE GROUPS AND THEIR SENATE — SENATE
ALLIES ENGAGED IN UNPRECEDENTED SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST JUDGE
ROBERT BORK. THE PARKING OF ROBERT BORK TAUGHT SPECIAL GROUPS THEY COULD
DEMONIZE JUDICIAL NOMINEES BASED SOLELY ON THEIR WORLDVIEW. WORSE
CHARACTER ASSASSINATIONS PROVED AN EFFECTIVE TACTIC NEARLY
SEEKING JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS’S APPOINTMENT FOUR YEARS
LATER. HE ALSO SAID, BY CONFIRMING JUDGE KAVANAUGH THE
SENATE CAN GO SOME WAY TOWARD ATONING OF JUSTICE ROBERT BORK 31 YEARS
AGO. JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS ONE OF THE MOST QUALIFIED NOMINEES IF
NOT THE MOST QUALIFIED NOMINEE I’VE SEEN. A GRADUATE OF YALE
LAW SCHOOL, CLERKING THREE FEDERAL JUDGES INCLUDING A MAN
HE NOMINATED TO REPLACE . HE SPENT THREE YEARS OF HIS
CAREER IN PUBLIC SERVICE AND HAS SERVED AS A JUDGE FOR 12 YEARS
ON THE DC CIRCUIT. THE MOST INFLUENTIAL FEDERAL CIRCUIT
COURT. HE’S ONE OF THE MOST IMPRESSIVE RECORDS FOR A LOWER
COURT JUDGE IN THE SUPREME COURT. IN A DOZEN SEPARATE CASES
THE SUPREME COURT ADOPTED VIEWS ADVANCED BY JUDGE
KAVANAUGH. THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WHOSE ASSESSMENT
DEMOCRATIC LEADERS HAVE CALLED THE GOLD STANDARD OF JUDICIARY
EVALUATIONS WAITED JUDGE KAVANAUGH UNANIMOUSLY
WELL-QUALIFIED. A REVIEW OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S EXTENSIVE
RECORD DEMONSTRATES A DEEP COMMITMENT TO THE RULE OF LAW.
HE’S WRITTEN ELOQUENTLY THAT BOTH JUDGES AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
ARE BOUND BY THE LAW, CONGRESS AND ASK. HE’S CRITICIZED THOSE
WHO SUBSTITUTE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT ON WHAT A STATUTE
SHOULD SAY ON WHAT THE STATUTE ACTUALLY SAYS. AFTER THE PRESIDENT NOMINATED
JUDGE KAVANAUGH I SAID THIS WOULD BE THE MOST THOROUGH
PROCESS IN HISTORY. I SAY THAT STATEMENT EVEN THOUGH ALL THE
STATEMENT WE’VE HAD THIS MORNING. IT’S PROVEN TO BE FROM
JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S AUTHORING 307 OPINIONS, JOINED HUNDREDS MORE
AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN 10,000 PAGES IF SUBMITTED HE SUBMITTED
17,000 PAGES OF SPEECHES, ARTICLES AND OTHER MATERIALS TO
THE COMMITTEE ALONG WITH THIS HUNDRED 20 PAGE WRITTEN RESPONSE
TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT THE COMMITTEE SET OUT. THESE AT UP
TO 27,000 PAGES OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S RECORD ALREADY
AVAILABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WE RECEIVED SHY OF HALF 1
MILLION PAGES OF EMAILS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FROM JUDGE
KAVANAUGH’S SERVICE AS AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH LAWYER WHICH IS
MORE THAN WE RECEIVED IN THE LAST FIVE SUPREME NOMINEES.
EVERY ONE MORE THAN 483 PAGES OF THE RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE TO ANY
SENATOR 24/7. I PUSHED FOR FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO EXPEDITE
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE PROCESS UNDER FEDERAL
LAW SO ALL AMERICANS HAVE ONLINE ACCESS TO MORE THAN 290,000
PAGES OF THESE RECORDS RIGHT NOW ON OUR COMMITTEE WEBSITE. IN SHORT, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
HAVE UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS AND MORE MATERIALS TO REVIEW JUDGE
KAVANAUGH THEN EVER HAVE HAD FOR A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE. TO
SUPPORT THE REVIEW OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S HISTORIC VOLUME OF
MATERIAL, I WORKED TO ENSURE MORE SENATORS HAVE ACCESS TO
MORE MATERIAL THAN EVER. THE REST OF MY STATEMENT HAS
BEEN DISCUSSED THIS MORNING BY WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID AND
I’VE ANSWERED A LOT OF IT. I WILL PUT THE LAST SEVEN PAGES OF
MY STATEMENT IN THE RECORD AND ASK SENATOR FEINSTEIN IF SHE HAS
MORE TO SAY ON HER OPENING STATEMENT AND IF SHE DOES NOT OWE GO TO SENATOR CASS.
>>I DO. I WILL TRUMP IT EVEN MORE. IT’S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE
AS WELL AS THE JUDGE, THE NOMINEE, UNDERSTAND
HOW STRONGLY WE FEEL AND WHY WE FEEL THAT WEIGHT. I WANT TO TALK
ABOUT ONE BIG DECISION THAT WE HAVE THE BELIEF ALTHOUGH YOU
TOLD SENATOR COLLINS YOU BELIEVED IT
WAS SETTLED LAW. THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU BELIEVE IT’S CORRECT
LAW? THAT’S ROE VERSUS WADE. I WAS IN THE 50s AND 60s ACTIVE
BUT FIRST I ATE — AS A STUDENT AT STANFORD. I SO
WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUNG WOMEN THAT BECAME PREGNANT. I
SUBSEQUENTLY SAT AS AN APPOINTEE OF GOVERNOR BROWN ON THE TERM
SETTING AND PAROLING AUTHORITY TOWARD WOMEN IN CALIFORNIA WHO
HAD COMMITTED FELONIES. I SENTENCE WOMEN WHO HAD COMMITTED
ABORTIONS TO STAY PRESENT AND GRANTED THEM PAROLES. I CAME TO
SEE BOTH SIDE. THE TERRIBLE SIDE AND THE HUMAN AND VULNERABLE
SIDE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATISTICS DURING THOSE DAYS,
THOSE STATISTICS AT THE INSTITUTE HAS PUT OUT ARE
HORRENDOUS. FOR YOU, THE PRESIDENT THAT NOMINATED YOU HAS
SAID, I WILL NOMINATE SOMEONE WHO IS ANTICHOICE AND PRO-GUN.
WE BELIEVE WHAT HE SAID. WE CANNOT FIND THE DOCUMENTS THAT
ABSOLVE FROM THAT CONCLUSION. WHAT WOMEN HAVE WON THROUGH THE ROE VERSUS WADE
CASE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE. I HOPE THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE AS WELL. LAST YEAR YOU DRAFTED A DISSENT AND THAT’S A CASE WHERE A YOUNG
WOMAN IN TEXAS WAS SEEKING AN ABORTION. IN THAT DISSENT YOU
ARGUED EVEN THOUGH THE YOUNG WOMAN HAD COMPLIED WITH THE
TEXAS PARENTAL NOTIFICATION LAW AND SECURED AN APPROVAL FROM A
JUDGE SHE SHOULD NONETHELESS BE BARRED. IN MAKING YOUR ARGUMENT,
YOU IGNORED AND I BELIEVE MISCHARACTERIZED THE SUPREME
COURT PRECEDENT. YOU REASON THAT JANE DOE SHOULD
NOT BE UNABLE TO EXERCISE HER RIGHT TO CHOOSE BECAUSE SHE DID
NOT HAVE FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO MAKE HER DECISION. THE ARGUMENT
REWRITE SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AND IF ADOPTED WE BELIEVE WOULD
REQUIRE COURTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER A YOUNG WOMAN HAD A
SUFFICIENT SUPPORT NETWORK WHEN MAKING HER DECISION EVEN IN
CASES WHERE SHE HAS GONE TO COURT.>>>NEXT I WOULD LIKER TO
ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT’S PROMISE TO APPOINT A NOMINEE
BLESSED BY THE NRA, IN REVIEWING YOUR DOCUMENTS IT’S CLEAR THAT
YOUR VIEWS GO WELL BEYOND BEING PRO GUN, IS MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT DURING A LECTURE AT NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL, YOU SAID YOU
WOULD BE THE QUOTE, FIRST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MOST LOWER
COURT JUDGES HAVE DISAGREED WITH YOUR VIEWS OF THE SECOND
AMENDMENT, FOR EXAMPLE IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VERSUS
HELLER YOU SAID THROUGHOUT HISTORY THEY CANNOT BE REGULATED
NOW. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS THEY
ARE TRADITIONAL OR COMMON IN THE UNITED STATES.
>>THIS LOGIC MEANS THAT EVEN AS WEAPONS BECOME MORE ADVANCED AND DANGEROUS THEY CANNOT BE
REGULATED. JUST EASTERBROOK CONCLUDED THAT THE REASONING WAS AB ABSURD
SOME CONCLUDED THAT A LAW’S EXISTENCE CAN NOT BE THE SOURCE
OF ITS OWN VALID TU, I AM LEFT WITH THE FACT THAT YOUR
REASONING IS FAR OUTSIDE OF THE MEAN STREAM OF LEGAL THOUGHT AND
SURPASSES THE VIEWS OF JUSTICE SCALIA, A PROGUN JUSTICE, HE
JUSTICE SCALIA UNDERSTOOD THAT WEAPONS THAT ARE RIFLES AND MOST
USEFUL IN MILITARY SERVICE CAN IN FACT BE REGULATED. THERE IS
NO QUESTION THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS LIKE THE AR 15 WERE SPECIFICALLY
DESIGNED TO BE LIKE THE M 16, THE UNITED STATES MAKES UP 4% OF
THE WORLD WIDE POPULATION BUT WE OWN 42% OF THE WORLD’S GUNS.
SINCE 2012, WHEN 20, FIRST GRADERS AND SIX SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
WERE KILLED AT SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY THERE HAVE BEEN 273
SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, THIS IS AN AVERAGE OF FIVE SHOOTINGS EVERY
MONTH AND A TOTAL OF 462 CHILDREN, TEENAGERS TEACHERS AND
STAFF SHOT AT — AND 152 KILLED, YOU CARE A LOT ABOUT THIS, I
AUTHORED THE ASSAULT WEAPONS LEGISLATION THAT BECAME LAW FOR
10 YEARS AND I HAVE SEEN THE DESTRUCTION, IF THE SUPREME
COURT WERE TO ADOPT YOUR REASONING, I FEAR THE NUMBER OF
VICTIMS WOULD CONTINUE TO GROW AND CITIZENS WOULD BE RENDERING
POWERLESS IN ENACTING SENSIBLE GUN LAWS, THIS IS A BIG PART OF
MY SCRE HONEST CONCERN — VERY HONEST CONCERN, YOU ARE BEING
NOT NATED FOR A PIVOTAL SEAT. IT WOULD LIKELY BE THE DECIDING
VOTE ON FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES SO DURING YOUR TIME IN THE WHITE
HOUSE WHEN YOU WERE STAFF SECRETARY, SOME PEOPLE REGARD
THIS AS MONITORING THINGS GOING IN AND OUT BUT I THINK ITS MUCH
MORE AND YOU YOURSELF HAVE SAID, THAT’S THE PERIOD OF MY GREATEST
GROWTH SO WE TRY TO LOOK AT IT, THE ONLY WAY WE CAN LOOK AT IT
IS TO UNDERSTAND THE DOCUMENTS. AND ETS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT, I
DO NOT WANT TO TALK TOO MANY TIME BUT WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF
NOISE, BEHIND THE NOWS IS A SUN SEAR BELIEF THAT IT IS SO
IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN THIS COUNTRY WHICH IS MULTI
MULTIETHNIC MULTI RELIGIOUS, MULTI ECONOMIC, A COURT THAT
REALLY SERVES THE PEOPLE AND SERVES THIS GREAT DEMOCRACY,
THAT’S MY WORRY, THAT’S MY WORRY. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
STATEMENT AND ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS, THANK YOU MR.
CHAIRMAN. >>SENATOR FOR 10 MINUTES.
>>THANK YOU FOR YOUR TREMENDOUS WORK IN THIS HEARING, THIS IS THE MOST
THOROUGH CONFIRMATION PROCESS THAN I HAVE PARTICIPATED IN.
THIS IS A BIG DEAL >>>WE HAVE 10S THE THOUSANDS OF
PAGES OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH OPINIONS, SPEECHES AND WRITINGS,
THIS HAS BEEN AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON THIS. NOW TO OUR JUSTICE, JUDGE KAVANAUGH I HAVE
KNOWN YOU FOR A LONG TIME. THIS IS MY 15TH CONFIRMATION HEARING,
I PARTICIPATED IN THE CONFIRMATION OF EVERY JUSTICE ON
THE SUPREME COURT, I PARTICIPATED IN THE CONFIRMATION
OF OVER HALF OF JUDGES THAT HAVE SERVED IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, I
KNOW A GOD NOMINEE WHEN I SEE ONE AND YOU ARE A GREAT NOMINEE,
I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS ANY QUESTION ABOUT IT, I HAVE KNOWN
YOU FOR A VERY LONG TIME, I REMEMBER WHEN YOU CAME BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE IN 2004, FOR YOUR FIRST CONFIRMATION HEARING, I
WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE AT THE TIME, I GOT TO
KNOW YOU WELL, I WAS IMPRESSED BY YOUR INTELLECT. YOUR LEGAL
ABILITY AND YOUR INTEGRITY, AT 39 YEARS OF AGE YOU KNEW MORE
ABOUT THE LAW THAN MANY LAWYERS WHO PRACTICED FOR A LIFETIME.
YOU HAVE BEEN AN OUTSTANDING JUDGE, YOU HAVE EARNED THE RESPECT OF YOUR
COLLEAGUES, YOU HAVE EARNED THE RESPECT OF THE SUPREME COURT AS
WELL. AS YOU KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ADOPTED THE POSITIONS
IN YOUR OPINIONS NO LESS THAN 13 TIMES. THAT’S SK NOBODY CAN
REALLY ARGUE AGAINST, YOU HAVE AUTHORED LANDMARK OPINIONS ON
THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND NATIONAL
SECURITY. YOU SERVED AS A MENTOR TO DOZENS OF CLERKS AND HUNDREDS
OF LAW STUDENTS, MALE AND FEMALE, SOME OF WHOM DID NOT
SHARE YOUR PHILOSOPHY, YOUR STUDENT REVIEWS ARE OFF THE
CHARTS FAVORABLY EVEN BY THOSE THAT DID NOT AGREE WITH YOUR
PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES ON SOME MATTERS, YOU VOLUNTEERED IN YOUR
COMMUNITY. MR. CHAIRMAN, I ASK FOR ORDER.
>>REGULAR ORDER. >>YOU VOLUNTEERED IN THE
COMMUNITY, YOU COACHED BASKETBALL, YOU ARE THE SORT OF
PERSON MANY OF US WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A FRIEND AND A COLLEAGUE,
YOU ALSO LIKE TO EAT PASTA WITH
KETCHUP BUT NOBODY IS PERFECT, THIS BEING A SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING, MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ACTUALLY, I HAVE GOT TO TALK A MINUTE, MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES CAN CAN ADMIT THAT YOU ARE A GOOD JUDGE
AND A GOOD PERSON AS WELL. THEY HAVE TURNED THE VOLUME UP TO 11
AND TRIED TO PAINT YOU AS ONE OF THE FOUR HORSE MEN OF THE
APOCALYPSE, ANYONE THAT KNOWS YOU KNOWS THAT IS RIDICULOUS,
YOU ARE A SMART, DECENT NORMAL PERSON THAT JUST SO HAPPENS TO
BE NOMINATED TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND. JUDGE
KAVANAUGH IS ONE OF THE MOST DISTINGUISHED JUDGES, MR.
CHAIRMAN I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE THIS LOUD MOUTH REMOVED. WE
SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS KIND OF STUFF, I HOPE SHE’S
NOT A LAW STUDENT. >>NOW THAT WE HAVE QUIET, I
WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN THAT I ADVISED, TWO YEARS AGO, THAT AT
MY HEARINGS, I EXPECTED THE POLICE TO DO THEIR JOB AND I
EXPECT THE COMMITTEE TO GO ON BUT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO
CONTINUE. >>I AM GOING TO CONTINUE. HERE
ARE THE FACTS, JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS ONE OF THE MOST DISTINGUISHED
JUDGES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, HE HAS SERVED FOR 12 YEARS ON THE
DC CIRCUIT, IT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS THE SECOND HIGHEST COURT
IN THE LAND BECAUSE IT HEARS MANY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT CASES
INVOLVING AGENCY ACTION AND THE SPRAWTION OF POWERS, DURING HIS
TIME ON THE BENCH JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS HEARD OVER 1,000
CASES, HE HAS WRITTEN MORE THAN 300 OPINIONS, HIS OPINIONS SPAN
5,000 PAGES IN LENGTH, WHAT IS REMARKABLE ABOUT JUDGE
KAVANAUGH’S JUDICIAL RECORD IS NOT JUST ITS LENGTH BUT ITS
DEATH AND IT’S QUALITY. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN A TRUE
THOUGHT LEADER, HE HAS WRITTEN POWERFUL OPINIONS ON THE
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, HE HAS SHOWN
HE BRINGS A FAIR MINDED APPROACH TO QUESTIONS OF CRIMINAL LAW AND
EMPLOYMENT LAW, ON ALMOST EVERY ISSUE OF CONSEQUENCE, JUDGE
KAVANAUGH HAS MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO JUMP AND HAS WON
RESPECT FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, THE
COMMITTEE HAS RECEIVED LETTERS FROM FORMER CLERKS, COLLEAGUES
STUDENTS AND CLASSMATES ALL ATTESTING TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S
STERLING CHARACTER SOME OF WHICH ARE DEMOCRATS, MEMBERS OF THE
LEGAL BAR AND ACADEMIA HAVE WRITTEN IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION, THE AUTHORS OF THESE LETTERS
EMPHASIZED THAT THEY HAVE DIFFERENT POLITICAL VIEWS AND
THAT THEY DO NOT DPREE ON EVERY SUBJECT BUT TO A PERSON THEY
SPEAK OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S INTEGRITY AND JUDGMENT AND
ENTHUSIASTICALLY ENDORSE HIS NOMINATION, I WOULD LIKE TO
HIGHLIGHT A LETTER FROM 18 OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S FORMER WOMEN
LAW CLERKS, THESE FORMER CLERKS SPAN THE
POLITICAL DIVIDE AND WENT ON TO CLERK FOR LIBERAL JUSTICES,
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE HAVE HIRED HIS FORMER CLERKS,
JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS NO I’D LOUGE OR CREAMIST HE IS A HIGHLY
RESPECTED FAIR MINDED JUDGE WITHIN THE JUDICIAL MAIN STREAM.
LOOK AT A LETTER >>>THEY WILL TELL YOU JUDGE
KAVANAUGH IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF PERSON WE SHOULD HAVE ON THE
COURT, WE SHOULD WANT ON THE COURT, NO LESS THAN BOB BENNET,
BILL CLINTON’S PERSONAL LAWYER WROTE TO THE COMMITTEE URGING
SUPPORT FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION. HE SAID AS A
WASHINGTON ATTORNEY YOU CAN ATTEST TO THE HUE ESTEEM IN
WHICH THE BAR LOVES JUDGE KAVANAUGH, LAWYERS LOVE ARGUING
BEFORE HIM FOR A GOOD REASON, THEY KNOW HE WILL APPROACH EVERY
CASE WITH AN OPEN MIND, HE CONTINUES BRETT IS THE MOST
F. THEY WOULD BE PASSING UP THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFIRM A GREAT
JURIST BUT IT WOULD UNDERMINE CIVILITY
AND IN LOSING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT SUCH A STRONG ADVOCATE FOR DECENCY AND
CIVILITY, AGAIN THIS IS PRESIDENT CLINTON’S PERSONAL
LAWYER WHO LITIGATED AGAINST JUDGE KAVANAUGH, THOSE WHO KNOW
JUDGE KAVANAUGH HOLD HIM IN HIGHEST REGARD. THIS IS TRUE OF
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE ALL OF
THESE INTEREST GROUPS SCREAMING FROM THE SIDE LINES AND PUTTING
PRESSURE ON MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES TO MAKE THIS HEARING
ABOUT POLITICS OR ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND HIS
QUALIFICATIONS, WE HAVE FOLKS WHO WANT TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT
WHO WANT THEIR MOMENT IN THE SPOTLIGHT. WHO WANT THE COVETED
TV CLIP, FRANKLY I WISH WE COULD DROP THE NONSENSE, JUDGE
KAVANAUGH IS QUALIFIED. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST WIDELY RESPECTED
JUDGES IN THE COUNTRY, HE IS WELL WITHIN THE JUDICIAL MAIN
STREAM, ANYONE WHO AGOS OTHERWISE WANTS TO BAN THE MAIN
STREAM. JUDGE I AM GLAD YOU ARE HERE TODAY. I’M SORRY THAT YOU
ARE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH THIS NONSENSE THAT IS ABOUT TO COME
YOUR WAY, YOU ARE SMART AND YOU ARE A FUNDAMENTALLY DECENT, GOOD
PERSON, NUN WHO KNOWS YOU KNOWS THAT TO BE TRUE. MR. CHAIRMAN, I
DO NOT KNOW THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS
TYPE OF INSOLENCE THAT IS GOING ON IN THIS ROOM TODAY. THESE
PEOPLE ARE SO SOUTH OF LINE, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN
THE DOING GONE ROOM, — DOG GONE ROOM, JUDGE BECAUSE OF BECAUSE
— JUDGE KAVANAUGH, I WISH YOU THE BEST BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO
CONFIRM YOU. >>OUT OF COURTESY TO RANKING
MEMBER DIE BEING FEINSTEIN SHE WANTS TO INTRODUCE
PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE. >>I WANT TO RGD MARK MO RERKS
AL THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE, MELANIE, AL, SHARP TON, BONITA GUPTA PRESIDENT OF THE
CIVIL RIGHTS OF AMERICA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE NAACP, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, CHRIS TIN CLARK, AND
FATIMA GROSS, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER AND FRED
GUTTENBERG, FATHER OF ONE OF 17 KILLED IN THE PARKLAND SHOOTING,
A FORMER SINGLE MOTHER AND BUSINESS OWNER LIVING WITH STAGE
FOUR MET STATIC BREAST CANCER, SARAH BECOME BRIDE, PRESIDENT OF
RIGHTS FOR PATIENTS. TIA, A PERSON WHO WORKS ON BEHALF THE
PEOPLE ARE DISABILITIES RIGHTS. A MEMBER OF THE STANDING ROCK
LAKOTA AND A VETERAN, A WOMAN WHO ADVOCATES FOR A WOMEN’S
RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND A VOTING RIGHTS
ADVOCATE, CARRY CHIN FIGHTING FOR SAME SEX BENEFITS RIGHT AND
A MEMBER OF LITTLE ROCK NINE, THANK YOU FOR THE COURTESY.
>>SENATOR LERKS AHY. >>THANK YOU — LEAHY.
>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS HAPPY TO YIELD TO THE SENATOR
FOR THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE LAST FEW MINUTES WE HAVE HEARD A LOT
OF RHETORIC, I THINK IT MIGHT SERVE THE COMMITTEE WELL TO HAVE
IS SOME REALITY. I HAVE SERVED IN THE SENATE FOR 44 YEARS, DURING THAT SPAN,
WE WERE ABLE TO VOTE ON 19 NOMINATIONS TO THE SUPREME
COURT. I MENTION THIS BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HISTORY, I
HAVE NEVER SEEN, IN THAT 44 YEARS, SO MUCH AT STAKE FOR A
SINGLE SEAT BUT I HAVE ALSO NEVER SEEN SUCH A DANGEROUS RUSH
TO FILL IT. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP PROMISED HE WOULD ONLY
NOMINATE JUDGES TO THE SUPREME COURT WHO WOULD OVERTURN ROW —
ROE VERSUS WADE. JUDGES WHO WOULD DISMANTLE THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND RESAIP HISTORY. IF THAT’S NOT JUDICIAL
ACTIVISM I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS, JUDGE KAVANAUGH WITH YOUR
NOMINATION, THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE IT CLEAR HE IS FOLLOWING
THROUGH ON HIS PROMISES AND MANY OF US FEEL THAT HE IS, YOU MAY
HAVE INTRIGUED HIM FOR ANOTHER REASON, YOUR EXPANSIVE VIEW OF
SECURITY POWER AND EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY, YOU HAVE TAKEN THE
UNORTHODOX POSITION THAT PRESIDENTS SHOULD NOT BE
BURDENED WITH A CRIMINAL OR CIVIL INVESTIGATION WHILE IN
OFFICE, NOW WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO HAS DECLARED IN THE LAST 24
HOURS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT PROSECUTE REPUBLICANS. NOW IT’S
ALICE IN WONDERLAND, I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT YOUR
VIEWS ON THIS SUBJECT ESCAPED THE INTEREST OF PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP WHO SEEMS
INCREASINGLY FIXATED ON HIS OWN BALLOONING LEGAL JEOPARDY, WE
ARE ALL GOING TO LOOK AT YOUR RECORD AND QUALIFICATIONS,
INDEED YOUR 12 YEARS ON THE DC CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS WILL
LOOM LARGE BUT THE OWN KNOWN LOOMS LARGER, BEFORE SITTING ON
THE BENCH YOU WERE A POLITICAL OPERATIVE INVOLVED IN THE MOST
POLITICAL AND PARTISAN CONTROVERSY OF OUR TIME. DURING
THIS TIME YOU SHARED YOUR PERSONAL VIEW OF CONTENTIOUS
ISSUES WITHOUT REGARD TO RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON THE PRESIDENT BY STARI DECISIS,
THE SUPREME COURT HEARINGS ARE MEANT TO BE AN
UNSPARING LOOK AT THE NOMINEE APPOINTED TO THE HUEST SUPREME
COURT. YOU ARE INTENDED TO GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A GENUINE
OPPORTUNITY TO SCREUT NICE THE NOMINEE’S
PHILOSOPHY AND CHARACTER, BECAUSE CONFIRMED WITH A STROKE
OF A PEN, A NOMINEE MAY IMPACT LIVES FOR A GENERATION OR MORE,
HOW FAR HAVE WE FALLEN, JUDGE KAVANAUGH THERE ARE SO MANY
THINGS WRONG WITH THIS COMMITTEE’S RECORD, IT’S HARD TO
KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN, I HAVE BEEN ON THIS COMMITTEE UNDER BOTH
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP. I NEVER THOUGHT THE
COMMITTEE WOULD SINK TO THIS. IN FACT, HE SHOULD NOT UB — BE SITTING
IN FRONT OF US TODAY. YOU SHOULD BE SITTING IN FRONT OF US AFTER
A REVIEW OF YOUR RECORD, YOUR VETTING IS LESS THAN 10%
COMPLETE. IN CRITICAL WAYS WE ARE ABANDONED OUR TRADITION OF
COMPLETELY VETTING SUPREME COURT NOMINEES, OUR REPUBLICAN FRIENDS
REFUSE TO REQUEST RORS FROM YOUR THREE YEARS AS WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY EVEN THOUGH YOU
DESCRIBED THOSE AS THE MOST FORMATIVE FOR YOU AS A JUDGE
WHEN YOU PROVIDED ADVICE ON ANY ISSUE THAT CROSSED THE PRESS’
DESK, WE KNOW THOSE ISSUES INCLUDED ABORTION, SAME SEX
MARRIAGE AND TORTURE, BUT SIX WEEKS AGO, SENATOR REPUBLICANS
HUDDLED IN A PRIVATE MEETING WITH THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL WHO
IS HERE TODAY AND HOURS LATER, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE TOLD
THOSE RECORDS WOULD BE OFF LIMITS, SECOND IN A STARK
DEPARTURE FROM THE COMMITTEE PRECEDENT I HAVE SEEN FOR 44
YEARS, CHAIRMAN GRASSILY SENT A PARTISAN REQUEST TO THE NATIONAL
ARCHIVES, NOT ONLY DID IT OMIT YOUR YEARS AS STAFF SECRETARY,
IT DID NOT EVEN REQUEST A PRIVILEGED
LOG, KEEPING THIS COMMITTEE IN THE DARK WITH WHAT SPECIFIC
DOCUMENTS ARE BEING WITHHELD AND WHY, WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS
BEING HIDDEN, SUCH A MOVE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH TRANSPARENCY,
THIRDLY THE ARCHIVES SAID THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE THE RECORDS
UNTIL THE END OF ACT. THAT’S THE NONPARTISAN
ARCHIVES. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I DID NOT
INTEND AT ANY POINT TO CONTINUE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY WITH SUCH
INTERRUPTIONS, I DO NOT CARE WHOSE SIDE THEY ARE ON. THE
ARCHIVES HAVE SAID THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PARTIAL RECORDS
REQUEST UNTIL THE END OF OCTOBER. SURELY I WOULD THINK
THAT THE UNITED STATES SENATE COULD WAIT UNTIL THEN EVEN IF IT
MEANS A SUPREME COURT WITH EIGHT JUSTICES FOR A SHORT TIME. AFTER
ALL, SENATE REPUBLICANS ESTABLISHED A TRADITION OF
HAVING JUST EIGHT JUDGES, EIGHT JUSTICES, THEY DID THAT WITH
THEIR TREATMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND, THAT SHOWED
THEY WERE WILLING TO BE PATIENT WITH FILLING SUPREME COURT
VACANCIES WHEN FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, THEY REFUSED TO HAVE
A VOTE ON A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE EITHER UP OR DOWN DURING
A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR AND I HAVE BEEN HERE WHEN THEY HAVE
HAD IT IN THE PAST, SUCH VOTES, BUT REPUBLICANS HAVE CAST ASIDE
THE ARCHIVES, THEY SWAPPED THE NONPARTISAN REVIEW PROCESS USED
FOR EVERY NOMINEE SINCE WATERGATE FOR A PARTISAN ONE,
YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT WATERDEBATE TO SEE WHY WE HAVE
THAT NONPARTISAN PROCESS, IT’S FOLLOWED BY EVERY NOMINATION
SINCE WATERGATE UNTIL TODAY. MY QUESTION RECURS, WHAT IS BEING
HIDDEN AND WHY? EVERY WHITE HOUSE RECORD THAT WE HAVE
RECEIVED WAS HAND PICKED BY YOUR DEPUTY IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE,
A HYPERCONFLICTED LAWYER WHO ALSO REPRESENTS HALF A DOZEN
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS WHO ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION BY
PROSECUTORS IN THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, THESE PARTISAN
LAWYERS DECIDED WHICH OF YOUR RECORDS THE SENATE BUT MORE
IMPORTANTLY, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET
TO SEE, ALSO THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE
COMMITTEE CONTAIN APPARENT ALTER ASIANS AND OWE MIGS WITH ZERO EXPLANATIONS
D — OMISSIONS WITH ZERO EXPLANATION, NO COURT WOULD
ACCEPT THIS AS DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND THE UNITED STATES
SHOULD NOT EITHER. FIFTH, MORE THAN 40 PERCENT OF THE DOCUMENTS
WE HAVE RECEIVED, 190,000 PAGES ARE CONSIDERED COMMITTEE
CONFIDENTIAL BY CHAIRMAN GRASSILY, FOR THE VAST MAJORITY
OF THEM, THERE IS NOT A CONCEIVABLE ARGUMENT TO RESTRICT
THEM. COMAIR THIS TO THE NUMBERS CREATED CONFIDENTIAL FOR JUSTICE
KAGAN AND THAT WAS BY THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES NOT BY THIS
COMMITTEE, ON FRIDAY WE LEARNED THAT PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS
CLAIMING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER AN ADDITIONAL 102,000 PAGES
OF YOUR RECORDS. SUCH A BLACT ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
IS UNHEARD OF IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY AND THE REASON ITS
UNHEARD OF IS BECAUSE ITS SO OUTRAGEOUS, THE LAST TIME I
PRESIDENT ATTEMPTED TO HIDE A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’ RECORDS
BY INVOKING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WAS WHEN RONALD REGAN DID THIS FOR JUDGE
RENQUIEST, BUT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS CAME TOGETHER AND
DEMANDED THAT THE DOCUMENTS BE RELEASED AND HE SAID OKAY AND
THEY WERE RELEASED. BOY HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED. WE HAVE
RECEIVED ONLY SENATOR GRASSLEY’S PARTIAL REQUEST, WE ARE MOVING
FORWARD WITHOUT RECEIVING YOU EVEN THE REPUBLICAN’S RECORDS, THEN
WE RECEIVED 42,000 PAGES OF THE RECORD FOUR HOURS AGO, THE
NOTION THAT NUN HERE HAS REVIEWED THEM OR SEEN THEM AT
ALL IS LAUGHABLE. IT’S LAUGHABLE, IT DOES NOT PASS THE
GIGGLE TEST. THAT ALONE WOULD BE REASON TO POSTPONE DURING NORMAL
TIMES BUT NOTHING ABOUT THIS IS NORMAL. ALL TOLD, ONLY 4%, 4% OF
YOUR WHITE HOUSE RECORD HAS BEEN SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC, ONLY 7%
HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THIS COMMITTEE. THE REST REMAINS
HIDDEN FROM SCRUTINY, COMPARE THIS TO
THE 99% OF JUSTICE KAGAN’S RECORD AVAILABLE TO ALL
AMERICANS AS A RESULT OF THE BIPARTISAN PROCESS I RAN WITH
THEN RANKING MEMBER JEFF SESSIONS WHEN SENATOR SESSIONS
REQUESTED IT, WE GOT 99%, WHAT IS BEING HIDDEN AND WHY, IF I
HAVE NOT BEEN CLEAR YOU WILL BE SO NOW, TODAY THE SENATE IS NOT
SIMPLY PHONING IN OUR VETTING OBLIGATION, WE ARE DISCARDING
IT. IT’S NOT ONLY SHAMEFUL, IT’S A SHAM. I
FELT ON THE DAY WHEN YOU TOOK — I TOOK MY OATH OF OFFICE THE
FIRST TIME, 44 YEARS AGO, I WAS TOLD BY THE REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP OF THE SENATE, PEOPLE I HIGHLY
RESPECTED, THE SENATE SHOULD BE AND CAN BE THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION. I
HAVE REPRESENTED VERMONT HEAR FOR FOR FOR YEARS I SERVED WITH
PRUDE HERE, BELIEVING THAT THE SENATE CAN BE AND SHOULD BE THE
CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION. TODAY WITH THIS HEARING, IT IS NOT
BEING THE CONSCIENCE OF THE NATION. FOR THE BITS AND PIECES
OF YOUR RECORD WE HAVE RECEIVED, IT APPEARS YOU PROVIDED
MISLEADING TESTIMONY ABOUT YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN CONTROVERSIAL
ISSUES AT THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE DURING YOUR PREVIOUS
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, MISLEADING TESTIMONY. I ASKED
YOU ABOUT THESE CONCERNS LAST MONTH. AND I WANT TO ALERT YOU
ABOUT THESE CONCERNS WHEN YOU ARE UNDER OATH AND I AM ASKING
QUESTIONS, I FEAR THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NOT KNOW
THE TRUTH UNTIL YOUR FULL RECORD IS PUBLIC AND UNFORTUNATELY
REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE THEIR BEST TO INSURE THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN,
WE BEGIN THE HEARINGS WITH GAPING HOLES SPANNING MULTIPLE
YEARS OF YOUR CAREER DEEPLY INFLUENCED BY YOUR OWN WORDS,
YOUR THINKING AS A JUDGE AND TO SAY THIS IS A THOROUGH PROCESS
IS DOWNRUDE ORWELLIAN, THIS IS THE MOST INCOMPLETE, LEAST
TRANSPARENT VETTING FOR ANY SUPREME COURT NOMINEE I HAVE
EVER SEEN AND I HAVE SEEN MORE OF THOSE THAN ANY PERSON SERVING
IN THE SENATE TODAY. JUDGE KAVANAUGH THIS HEARING IS
PREMATURE BUT I HOPE YOU WILL USE IT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS
CLEARLY AND CORRECTLY AND HONESTLY BECAUSE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE HAVE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT HOW YOUR CONFIRMATION WILL
EFFECT THEIR LIVES, I WILL CONCLUDE WITH THIS, THE SUPREME
COURT IS A GUARANTOR OF OUR LIBERTIES AND OUR REPUBLIC, FEW
I WOULD ARGUE ARE WORTHY OF TAKING THE SEAT. ONLY THOSE WITH
UNUM PEACHABLE INTEGRITY. ONLY THOSE THAT BELIEVE THAT TRUTH IS
MORE IMPORTANT THAN PARTY AND ONLY THOSE THAT BELIEVE IN
UPHOLDING THE RIGHTS OF ALL AMERICANS NOT JUST THOSE IN
POWER, AS YOU KNOW INSCRIBED IN VERMONT MARTIAL ARE THE WORDS
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW, FOR THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS FEARFUL
THAT THEY ARE ON THE VERGE OF LOSING HARD FOUGHT RIGHTS, THAT
ASPIRATION IS NEVER MORE IMPORTANT THAN IT IS TODAY.
FRANKLY AS A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT AND AS BAR
AND AS A UNITED STATES SENATOR I FEEL IT’S NEVER BEEN MORE AT
RISK. >>BEFORE I CALL UP SENATOR CORNYN, HOW
RIDICULOUS IT IS TO SAY WE DO NOT HAVE THE RECORDS WE NEED TO
DETERMINE IF THIS MAN QUALIFIES WHEN ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS WE
HAVE ADD UP TO THE LAST SUPREME COURT NOMINEES, HOW DO WE MAKE
THOSE. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD JUST RESPOND ITS NOT
THE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS, WE WOULD NOT HUR AN INTERNAL WITH
ONLY 10% OF THEIR REZ MAY. >>SENATOR.
>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, JUDGE KAVANAUGH WELCOME TO YOU AND
YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS, I AM AMAZED AT THE POKER FACES I HAVE
SEEN IN THE FRONT ROW DURING THIS
PANDEMONIUM, UNLIKE ANYTHING I HAVE SEEN, IT’S NOT BECAUSE YOUR
OPPONENTS DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT YOU, IT’S BECAUSE THEY
KNOW ALL THAT THEY NEED TO KNOW, APPARENTLY TO OPPOSE YOUR
NOMINATION AND BEFORE YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO ANSWER OUR
QUESTIONS INCLUDING THEIR QUESTIONS, MANY OF THEM HAVE
MADE UP THEIR MINDS BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN
INTRODUCED TO YOU BEFORE, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF US
TO GAUGE AND ILLUMINATE WHY ITS SO IMPORTANT FOR JUDGES
TO HAVE VIEWS TETHERED TO THE EXECUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE UNDERTAKES FEW MORE POUR TASKS
THAN THE ONE BEFORE US TODAY. LAST YEAR THE COMMITTEE
CONSIDERED AND ADVANCED THE NOMINATION OF JUSTICE KNEE GORE GORE ONE OF — JUSTICE GOERSUCH AND
26 JUDGES TO THE APPELLATE COURT ACROSS THE NATION, HISTORICALLY,
THE CONFIRMATION OF JUDGES TO OUR HIGHEST COURTS IS DONE WITH
SOME ROUTINE, JUSTICE GORSUCH WAS UNANIMOUSLY CONFIRMED BY A
VOICE VOTE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, NOT ONE SENATOR VOTED
IMENS JUSTICE KENNEDY WHO BOTH YOU AND JUSTICE GORSUCH
CLERKED FOR AND WHO YOU WILL FOLLOW ON THE COURTS, NOT ONE
OBJECTED TO JUSTICE SCALIA’S CONFIPTION BUT THAT WAS BEFORE
JUDGES WERE VIEWED AS POLICY MAKERS RATHER THAN FAIR AND
NEUTRAL INTERPRETERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO TODAY IS A
WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO REEXAMINE THE PROPER ROLE OF
JUDGES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
LEGISLATORS AND JUDGES, UP HOLDING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN
JUDGES AND LEGISLATORS WAS THE PROJECT OF THE LAWSUIT JUSTICE
SCALIA’S CAREER, HE REMINDED US THAT LEGISLATORS MAY APPEAL TO
THEIR MORAL CONVICTIONS AND CLAIMS OF SOCIAL UTILITY BUT JUDGES
INSTEAD SHOULD STRIVE TO APPLY THE LAW LOOKING TO THE TEXT AND
STRUCTURES AND HISTORY NOT TO DECIDE CASES BASED ON THEIR OWN
MORAL CONVICTIONS OR THEIR POLICY CONSEQUENCES, THIS HERE’S
IS IS AN OUTSTANDING WAY TO REMIND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF
THE CONSTITUTION, IT HAS A BULL THE RIGHTS TO FURTHER PROTECT
OUR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, TO THAT END THE FRAMERS CREATED
THREE COEQUAL BRANCHES, TS LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAWS, THE
EXECUTIVE TO ENFORCE THEM AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH TO SATELLITE
THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE MEANING OF THE LAWS AND THE
CONSTITUTION, OF COURSE THE LEGISLATURE CAN CHANGE THE LAWS
BUT ONLY AN AMENDMENT CAN CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, FOR THIS REASON, ALEXANDER HALT —
HAMILTON WROTE IN THE FEDERALIST PAGES THAT THE JUDICIARY WILL
ALWAYS BE THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH BECAUSE JUDGES WILL HAVE
NEITHER FORCE NOR WILL BUT MEAL JUDGMENT. TODAY THE COMMITTEE IS
GATHERED TO DETERMINE WHETHER JUDGE KAVANAUGH WILL PROBABLY
EXERCISE THE MODEST AND HUMBLE POWER OF JUDGMENT ENTRUSTED TO
HIM UNDER THE STREUTION, I AM CONFIDENT THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH
WILL FAITHFULLY AND CAREFULLY INTERPRET THE LAWS OF THIS GREAT
NATION AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HIM SUCCEEDED JUSTICE KENNEDY, ONE
REASON IS BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN
ACQUAINTED WITH JUDGE KAVANAUGH FOR 18 YEARS, WHEN I WAS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AS THE JUDGE WILL RECALL HE HELPED ME
BET READY FOR A SUPREME COURT ARGUMENT >>>MAY I PROCEED MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> AS I WAS SAYING WHEN I WAS THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS I ARGUED A COUPLE OF CASES BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT. ONE CASE JUDGE KAVANAUGH HELPED ME
PREPARE FOR WAS A CASE INVOLVING THE QUESTION OF SCHOOL PRAYER AT
A HIGH SCHOOL. I WAS PLEASED TO INTRODUCE JUDGE KAVANAUGH TO THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH NOMINATED HIM TO
BE A JUDGE ON THE DC CIRCUMSTANCE, I SAID JUDGE
KAVANAUGH HAS AN UNPARALLELED RECORD OF SERVICE, MANY CITE HIS
SERVICE, HIS TIME BEFORE THE COURT. HIS EXPERIENCE WORKING
FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BUT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS TO
ME IS HE HAS ALREADY EXERCISED EXCELLENT JUDGMENT IN MARRYING A
TEXAN SO I KNOW HE IS A GOOD JUDGE, HE IS ONE OF THE MOST
RESPECTED AND THOUGHTFUL JUDGES IN THE COUNTRY, I AM
DISAPPOINTED THAT DISIET HIS GREAT QUALIFICATIONS AND
OUTSTANDING RECORDS SO MANY OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE ANNOUNCED
THEIR OPTION EVEN BEFORE HE WAS NOMINATED. THE LEVEL OF
DISINGENUOUSNESS AND HYPERBOLE IS EXTRAORDINARY, MEMBERS FROM
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE HAVE SAID CONFIRMING THE JUDGE COULD
BE COMPLICIT IN EVIL AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION,
SOME HAVE CLAIMED THAT YOU TESTIFIED FALSELY, WE HAVE HEARD
THAT ALLUDED TO, WHEN YOU WERE SOFG IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE, I
HOPE YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN THE APPARENT
MISUNDERSTANDING OF SOME SENATORS AND I HOPE THIS WEEK WE
CAN TAKE A DEEP BREATH, WE ARE NOT DOING VERY WELL SO FAR, AND
GET A GRIP AND TREAT THIS PROCESS WITH THE RESPECT AND GRAPH
GRAVITY THAT IS DEMANDS, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION WHICH
SOME HAVE CALLED THE GOLD STANDARD FOR NOMINATIONS HAVE
RATED YOU WELL QUALIFIED FOR A POSITION ON THE SUPREME COURT
AND JUDGES AND LAWYERS CROSS THE SPECTRUM HAVE TALKED ABOUT YOUR
QUALIFICATIONS AND I AM CONFIDENT THAT YOUR BODY OF WORK
WILL SHOW THAT YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR ROLE AS THE JUDGE AND I AM
CONFIDENCE THAT YOU WILL FAITHFULLY INTERPRET THE TEXT OF
THE LAW AND APPLY IT TO THE DISPUTES THAT COME BEFORE YOU,
FINALLY JUDGE I EXPECT THAT WE WILL HAVE A CONVERSATION OR TWO
ABOUT THIS BOOK WHICH YOU CONTRIBUTED TO. THE LAW AND
JUDICIAL PRESIDENT, I KNOW THERE IS A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS BY THE
SENATE ABOUT HOW YOU WILL REGARD PREVIOUSLY DECIDED CASES IN THE
SUPREME COURT AND I TRUST YOU WILL GIVE US A SCAL ARLY
DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THAT AND DEMONSTRATE THAT MANY OF THE
CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED ABOUT A NEW JUSTICE
COMING ON THE COURT AND SOMEHOW WIPING AWAY PREVIOUS DECISION
SINGLE HANDEDLY IS JUST PLAIN RIDICULOUS AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS AND GETTING THEM ANSWERED.
>>SENATOR DURBIN. >>JUDGE KAVANAUGH, IT’S GOOD TO
SEE YOU AGAIN, THANK YOU TO THE MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY
WHETHERRING THIS HEARING, THIS IS A DIFFERENT HEARING FOR THE
SUPREME COURT THAN I HAVE EVER BEEN THROUGH, IS DIFFERENT IN
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS ROOM JUST THIS MORNING, WHAT WE HAVE
HEARD IS THE NOISE OF DEMOCRACY, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN A FREE
COUNTRY WHEN PEOPLE CAN STAND UP AND SPEAK AND NOT BE JAILED,
IMPRISONED TORTURED OR KILLED BECAUSE OF IT. IT IS NOT MOB
RULE. THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN IT IS UNCOMFORTABLE, I AM SURE
IT WAS FOR YOUR CHILDREN, I HOPE YOU CAN EXPLAIN THIS TO THEM AT
SOME POINT BUT IT IS IT REPRESENT WHAT WE ARE ABOUT IN
THIS DETECTIVE SI, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
THE HISTORY OF THIS COMMITTEE, WE NEED TO BE HONEST ABOUT WHY
IS HAPPENING, I THINK ITS THE SAME REASON WHY WHEN I GO HOME
TO BEING IN ILLINOIS, AFTER BEING IN THIS PUBLIC SERVICE JOB
FOR 40 YEARS I HEAR A QUESTION I HAVE NEVER HEARD BEFORE,
REPEATEDLY, PEOPLE PULL ME OFF TO THE SIDE AND SAY, SENATOR,
ARE WE GOING TO BE ALL RIGHT. IS AMERICA GOING TO BE ALL RIGHT.
THEY ARE GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS
COUNTRY, YOU COME TO THIS MOMENT IN HISTORY IN A RAWR SITUATION,
YOU ARE ASPIRING TO BE THE MOST DECISIVE VOTE ON THE SUPREME
COURT ON CRITICAL ISSUES, JUSTICE KENNEDY DID THAT FOR 12
YEARS AND YOU ARE CALLED TO THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND WE REALIZE
THE GRAVITY OF THAT OPPORTUNITY AND THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
SECONDLY OF COURSE, YOU ARE RECORD AND THE STATEMENTS OF
OTHERS SUGGEST THERE IS REAL GENUINE CONCERN ABOUT CHANGING
LIFE AND DEATH VALUES IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE YOU SEE THINGS
DIFFERENTLY. WE HAVE HEARD THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I THINK YOU
MUST UNDERSTAND THE DEPTH OF FEELING ABOUT THAT POSSIBILITY.
THIRD, TRY AS THEY MIGHT, I AM AFRAID THAT THE MAJORITY CANNOT
GET BEYOND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PARTS OF YOUR PUBLIC LIFE
THAT THEY DO NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO SEE, THEY
WANT TO CONCEAL THEM, BUT OVER AND ABOVE ALL OF THOSE THINGS IS
THIS, YOU ARE THE NOMINEE OF PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP,
THIS IS A PRESIDENT THAT HAS SHOWN US CONSISTENTLY THAT HE IS
CONTEMPT YUS OF THE RULE OF LAW, HE HAS SON THINGS AND SAID
THINGS AS PRESIDENT WHICH WE HAVE NEVER SEEN IN HISTORY. HE
HE DISMISSED THE HEAD OF THE FBI, HE HAD A
RASES HIS OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DOING HIS JORKS I DID NOT
VOTE FOR JEFF SESSIONS, NOW ITS THAT PRESIDENT WHO HAS DECIDED
THAT YOU ARE HIS PERSON, YOU ARE THE PERSON HE WANTS ON THE
SUPREME COURT, YOU ARE HIS PERSONAL CHOICE, ARE PEOPLE
NERVOUS ABOUT THIS? ARE THEY CONCERNED ABOUT IT? OF COURSE
THEY ARE, I AM SURE THERE WILL BE A SHOWER OF TWEETS LATER
TODAY HARASSING PEOPLE IN THE CABINET OR THE THE WHITE HOUSE,
MAYBE HE WILL GO AFTER ME AGAIN, BE MY GUEST, IF YOU WONDER WHY
THIS REACTION IS TAKING PLACE ITS BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN
THIS COUNTRY, MANY OF US ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF
THIS COUNTRY AND THE FEUMENT OF DEMOCRACY AND YOU ARE ASKING FOR
THE APPOINTMENT TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND WHERE YOU WILL
MAKE DECISIONS ON THINGS THAT WILL DECIDED COURSE OF HISTORY
AND WHERE WE ARE HEADING. THE IS THAT THE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO EE EVALUATE YOUR NOMINATION, WE KNOW BEFORE
YOU BECAME A JUDGE YOU WERE FAITHFULLY ADVANCING THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY AGENDA, I SAID IN ONE OF YOUR PREVIOUS
APPEARANCE, YOU ARE LIKE THE FOREST GUMP OF REPUBLICAN
POLITICS, YOU ALWAYS SHOW UP IN THE PICTURE, WHETHER IT’S THE
KERCH STARR INVESTIGATION AND OTHERS, ALSO PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP MADE IT CLEAR HE WOULD ONLY APPOINT JUSTICES TO THE
SUPREME COURT THAT WOULD OVERTURN ROE VERSUS WADE AND THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. HE DID NOT ASK YOU THE QUESTION, HE DEGHTED
THE RESPONSIBILITY TO TWO INTEREST GROUPS, THE FEDERALIST
SOCIETY AND THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND THE OTHERS THAT
ARE SPENDING MILLIONS OF DLARDZ TOWARDS YOUR CANDIDACY, THEY ARE
CONFIDENT YOU YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE THEM THEIR
INTEREST, ONE CLERK WROTE BRETT KAVANAUGH SAID OBAMACARE WAS
UNPRECEDENTED AND UNLAWFUL, THAT’S FROM ONE OF YOUR CLERKS,
ANOTHER WROTE WHEN IT COMES TO ENFORCING RESTRICTIONS ON
ABORTION, NO COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE IN THE NATION HAS A
STRONGER MORE CONSISTENT RECORD THAN JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH, BIG
CORPORATE INTERESTS ARE BEHIND YOUR NOMINATION, CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, FULL SUPPORT AND PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, HOSE
LAWYERS SAID THEY WILL FIGHT ANY EFFORT TO INDICT HIM ALL THE WAY
TO THE SUPREME COURT SEEMS EAGER TO HAVE YOU CONFIRMED AS QUICKLY
AS POSSIBLE, WHY DO THEY THINK YOU ARE SUCH A SURE BET TO TAKE
THEIR SIDE WHEN IN THE WORDS OF YOUR FORMER CLERKS, THIS IS NOT
A TIME FOR A GAMBLE, UNFORTUNATELY I DO NOT THINK YOU
ARE GOING TO TELL US MUCH THIS WEEK, IT’S INTERESTING TO ME
THAT THE PEOPLE IN YOUR POSITION WRITE THESE REVIEWS AND SPEECHES
AND COME TO THIS ROOM AND CLAM UP, DO NOT WANT TO TALK ABOUT
ANY ISSUES BUT THAT’S WHAT I EXPECT. INSTEAD WE ARE GOING TO
BE ASKED THAT IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED YOU WILL HAVE AN OPEN
MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO TRUST YOU BUT I AGREE WITH PRESIDENT
REGAN, TRUST BUT VERIFY, I WANTED TO TRUST YOU THE LAST
TIME YOU TESTIFIED IN 2006 BUT AFTER YOU WERE CONFIRMED REPORTS
SURFACED THAT CONTRADICTED YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY, YOU SAID TO ME
UNDER OATH THE FOLLOWING, I WAS NOT INVOLVED AND AM NOT INVOLVED
IN THE QUESTIONS OF THE RULES GOVERNING
COMBATANTS BUT LATER YOU ACKNOWLEDGED IN MY OFFICE THAT
YOU WERE INVOLVED. FOR 12 YEARS, YOU COULD HAVE APOLOGIZED BUT
YOU DID. BUT WE WERE TOLD YOUR WORDS MEAN SOMETHING DIFFERENT,
YOU ARE COMMITTED IF YOU ARE GOING TO HOLD OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE
FOR THEIR WORDS, YOU SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR WORDS, SO I
START THE HEARINGS ABOUT YOUR CREDIBILITY AS A WITNESS, I KNOW
THAT THE THINGS YOU HAVE SAID NEED TO BE CAREFULLY VERIFIED.
THAT LEADS TO ANOTHER PROBLEM, I WILL NOT RETREAD THE GROUND OF
THE DOCUMENTS BEING WITHHELD BUT THIS IS A CALENDAR, THERE IS A
35 MONTH BLACK HOLE IN YOUR WHITE HOUSE CAREER WHERE WE HAVE BEEN DENIED DENIED
ACCESS TO YOUR DOCUMENTS, WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH WAS CONSIDERING
AN AMENDMENT TO BAN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, SUPREME COURT
NOMINEES, WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING, ONE OF THESE BEARS
SPECIAL ATTENTION AS WE MOURN THE PASSING OF JOHN McCAIN, IN
2004 I JOINED JOHN McCAIN WHEN WE PASSED AN AMENDMENT CONCLUDED
THAT TORTURE WOULD BE ILLEGAL IN AMERICA,
JOHN McCAIN SPOKE WITH MORAL AUTHORITY. YOU WORKED IN THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION, THEY DID EVERYTHING IN IT’S POWER TO STOP
JOHN McCAIN’S TORTURE AMENDMENT, THEN PRESIDENT BUSH ISSUED A
SIGNING STATEMENT ASSERTING HIS RIGHT TO IGNORE THE LAW THAT
JOHN McCAIN PASSED IN CONGRESS, YOU HAVE ADMITTED THAT YOU
WORKED ON THAT STATEMENT BUT WE HAVE BEEN DENIED ANY INFORMATION
ABOUT THAT, I ASKED ABOUT YOUR TIME AS STAFF SECRETARY AND YOU
SAID TIME AND AGAIN, YOU CANNOT RULE IT OUT. AMERICA NEEDS TO
SEE THOSE DOCUMENTS, WE CANNOT REVIEW AND DECIDE WITHOUT
CLARITY ON THE RECORD. FOR A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN YOU WORKED
IN THE REPUBLICAN WHITE HOUSE, IT LED TO A CHANGE IN POSITION
ON AN ISSUE WHICH WE HAVE TO ADDRESS DIRECTLY. YOUR VIEWS ON
EXECUTIVE POWER AND ACCOUNTABILITY HAVE CHANGED
DRAMATICALLY. WHEN YOU WORKED FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL KEN STARR,
YOU CALLED HIM AN AMERICAN HERO FOR INVESTIGATING PRESIDENT BILL
CLINTON AND YOU PERSONALLY URGED HIM TO BE AGGRESSIVE
CONFRONTATIONAL AND GRAPHIC IN HIS QUESTIONS BUT A FEW YEARS
LATER AFTER WORKING IN THE REPUBLICAN WHITE HOUSE YOU
REVERSED YOUR POSITION AND ARGUED THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
BE ABOVE THE LAW AND GRANTED A FREE PASS FROM CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION WHILE IN OFFICE, WHAT DID YOU SEE IN THE BUSH
WHITE HOUSE THAT DRAMATICALLY CHANGED YOUR VIEWS AND WHAT ARE
YOUR VIEWS ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY TODAY. AT THIS
MOMENT IN HISTORY WITH AUTHORITARIAN FORCES AND WITH
THE PRESIDENT UNDER FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WE NEED A
DIRECT ANSWER FROM YOU, IS THIS PRESIDENT OR ANY PRESIDENT ABOVE
THE LAW AND CAN THE PRESIDENT IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION IN
EXERCISE OF HIS AUTHORITY. YOU DISSENTED DISSENTED WHEN THE DC
CIRCUIT UPHELD THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AUTHORITY AND YOU SAID
THE PRESIDENT MAY DECLINE TO ENFORCE A STATE WHEN THE
PRESIDENT DEEMS THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL EVEN IF A COURT
HAS HELD OR WOULD HOLD THE STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL. THIS
STATEMENT FLIES IN THE FACE OF MARBURY VERSUS MADISON, OUR
NORTH STAR, IT GIVES LICENSE TO THIS
PRESIDENT PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP TO IGNORE AUTHORITY. THERE ARE
MANY PEOPLE WATCHING CAREFULLY, I MIGHT MAKE A SUGGESTION TO YOU
TODAY. IT’S NOT GOING TO BE POPULAR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
AISLE. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR PUBLIC RECORD IS ONE THAT YOU
CAN CAN STAND BEHIND AND DEFEND, I HOPE THAT AT THE END OF THIS,
YOU WILL ASK THIS CHEA TO SUSPEND UNTIL WE ARE GIVEN ALL
OF THE DOCUMENTS, UNTIL WE HAVE THE TIME TO REVIEW THEM. THEN WE
RESUME THIS HEARING, WHAT I AM SAWING TO YOU IS THIS, IF YOU
WILL TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THEY WILL TRUST YOU. BUT IF YOU
ARE EFFORT TODAY CONTINUES TO CONCEAL AND HIDE DOCUMENTS, IT
RAISES A SUSPICION, I WILL CLOSE, MR. CHAIRMAN, I KNOW YOU
ARE ANXIOUS, WHEN I WAS A PRACTICING LAWYER, A LONG TIME
AGO IN TRIAL AND THE OTHER SIDE EITHER DESTROYED OR CONCEALED
EVIDENCE, I KNEW THAT I WAS GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A
CONVINCING ARGUMENT TO CLOSE THAT CASE, WHAT WERE THEY
HIDING, WHY WON’T THEY LET YOU SEE THE SPEED TAPE ON THE TRAIN
OR THE DOCUMENTS THEY CANNOT FIND. YOU KNOW THAT PRESUMPTION
IS AGAINST YOU FOR THE BAWMENT DOCUMENTS THAT ARE HELD BACK,
FOR THE SAKE OF THIS NATION AND THE SANCTITY OF THE CONSTITUTION
WE HONOR, STEP UP AND ASK THIS GATHERING TO SUSPEND UNTIL ALL
OF THE DOCUMENTS OF YOUR PUBLIC CAREER ARE THERE FOR THE PUBLIC
TO SEE. >>SENATOR LEE.
>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND ASHLEY AND MARGRET AND ELIZA FOR
BEING HERE, I AM GOING TO START BY THE FACT THAT THERE IS SO MUCH ANGs ANGST OVER
A SINGLE NOMINEE TELLS YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW WHY
IT’S IMPORTANT WE NEED A JUDGE THAT IS WILLING TO INTERPRET THE
LAW, IT ALSO TELLS YOU MORE THAN YOU CAN NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE
NEED TO RESTORE A DISCUSSION OF CIVICS AND RESTORE A DISCUSSION
ABOUT FEDERALISM AND SEPARATION OF POWERS AND WHERE POWER IS
CONCENTRATED AND WHERE IT SHOULD NOT BE AND THE ROLE OF EACH
BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS AND IS NOT. MANY OF THE
COMMENTS AND THE OUTBURSTS WE HAVE HAD SUGGEST THAT WE NEED TO
RETURN TO SOME OF THOSE FUNDAMENTAL PRIPS, I DO NOT CARE
IF YOU ARE A LEB RAL DEPTH OR CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN, THESE
PRINCIPLES APPLY, THEY ARE PRINCIPLES TO WE WE HAVE SWORN
AN OATH AND I THINK WE COULD DO WELL TO RESTORE IF WE WERE TO
RETURN TO AN ERA OF CIVILITY, OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS, JUDGE
KAVANAUGH A NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO ASK
YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT CASES THAT YOU HANDLED AS A LAWYER, CASES
THAT YOU DECIDED AS A JUDGE, ABOUT YOUR RECORD, ABOUT YOUR
QUALIFICATIONS, ON YOUR RECORD AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS, THE
SUGGESTION THAT YOU MISLED THIS COMMITTEE AT ANY POINT IN YOUR
PREVIOUS HEARINGS IS ABSURD AND THAT WILL BE BOURNE OUT IN THE
COMING DAY, I AM CERTAIN ABOUT IT. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT
WILL BE ASKED OF YOU WILL IN FACT BE FAIR AND OTHERS WILL BE
UNFAIR. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR US TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AT
THE OUTSET. WHEN YOU LOOK BACK AT HISTORY, ANSWERING THESE CAN
I UNDERSTAND OF QUESTIONS, THIS IS HOW THE PRACTICE OF HOLDING
THESE HEARINGS BEGAN, SO THE SENATORS COULD ASK NOMINEES HOW
THEY MIGHT VOTE, HOW THEY MOIT RULE IN PARTICULAR CASES BUT
THIS DOES NOT ALWAYS HAPPEN, IN FACT, IT WAS NOT UNTIL 1916 THAT
THIS EVEN STARTED. YOU SEE, THERE HAVE BEEN 113 JUSTICES
CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT SO FAR, THE FIRST 66 WERE
CONFIRMED WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, THE IDEA OF A HEARING
IS RELATIVELY NEW, 102 YEARS OLD. WE WENT FOR 130 YEARS
WITHOUT EVER HAVING A HEARING BUT REGARDLESS WE STARTED TO
HAVE HEARING OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE FIRST SUPREME COURT
CONFIRMATION HEARING OCCURRED IN 1916 WITH JUSTICE LEWIS
BRANDEIS, AFTER HE WAS NOMINATED FOR THE SUPREME COURT, SOME
CALLED FOR A HEARING, IF WE ARE ONEST ABOUT OUR HISTORY, A LOT
OF THIS MAY HAVE HAD TO DO WITH ANTISEMITIC FERVOR AND THE YUS YEAHS JEWISH — JUSTICE WAS
JEWISH. THEY WANTED TO KNOW HOW HE MIGHT VOTE IN PARTICULAR
CASES, THEY DID NOT ASK JUSTICE
BRANDEIS TO TESTIFY BUT THEY ASKED OUTSIDE WITNESSES WHAT
THEY THOUGHT ABOUT HIS NOMINATION, THE NEXT IMPORTANT
MOMENT ONE COULD ARGUE OCCURRED IN 1939 WHEN FELIX
FRANKFURTER WAS THE NOMINEE. AT THE TIME HE WAS CONTROVERSIAL
BECAUSE HE WAS BORN OVERSEAS BUT PEOPLE WERE WORRIED HE WAS A RADICAL BASED
ON HIS DEFENDING ANARCHISTS IN COURT. THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT
THE RESULTS HE MIGHT REACH IN A CASE BUT FRANKFURTER
WOULD NOT ENGAMING ON THOSE TOPICS AND INSISTED HIS PUBLIC
RECORD SPOKE FOR ITSELF. JUSTICE STEWART’S NOMINATION WAS ANOTHER
TURNING POINT. SENATORS SEEKING TO RESIST BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF
EDUCATION WANTED TO GRILL STEWART ON HIS VIEWS OF
INTEGRATION, OTHERS ON HIS VIEWS ON NATIONAL SECURITY. SENATORS
TURNED UP THE HEAT MORE, LIKE FRANK THE JUSTICES BEFORE HIM HE
DECLINED. 28 YEARS AFTER JUSTICE STEWART CAME THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE, THE
SENATE CONSIDERED ROBERT BORK’S NOMINATION, THIS IS SIGNIFICANT
AND IN MY VIEW IT REMAINS SOMETHING OF A ROCK BOTTOM
MOMENT FOR THE SENATE AND THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE,
WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE GORY DETAILS HERE, I THINK IS
SUFFICES TO SAY THAT SENATOR TED TED KENNEDY AND JUDGE BORK DID
NOT AGREE ON CERTAIN MATTERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND KENNEDY’S
RESPONSE WAS TO SAVAGE, UNFAIRLY IN MY OPINION, THE RESULT THAT
JUDGE BORK WOULD REACH IF CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT.
HISTORY SHOWS THAT OVER A BETTER PART OF A CENTURY, THE COMMITTEE
HAS CREATED A NEW NORM, A NORM IN WHICH NOMINEES SPECIFIC ABOUT
SPECIFIC CASES IN RETURN FOR FAVORABLE TREATMENT FROM THE
COMMITTEE AS THE JURORS ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, NOMINEES HAVE
RESISTED CREATED ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD VOTE. JUSTICES SCA SCA REFUSED TO SAY WHETHER MAR BURY VERSUS MAD VERSE DMARBURRY VERSUS MADISON, LIKE
WIDE JUSTICE JUSTICE GINSBURG CREATED THE JUSTICE GINSBURG
STANDARD, NO PREVIEWS, NO FORECASTS, NO HYPOTHETICALS,
EVERY MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT CURRENTLY HAS ADD HERED TO
THE JUSTICE GINSBURG STANDARD. EVEN THOUGH NOMINEES HAVE NOT
CAVED TO THE PRESSURE, I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME ASPECTS OF
THE SENATE’S APPROACH THAT MIGHT DO A DISSERVICE TO THE COUNTRY
AND MIGHT BE FROWNED UPON BY FUTURE HISTORIANS, IF SENATORS
REPEATEDLY ASK NOMINEES ABOUT OUTCOMES, THE PUBLIC WILL BE MORE ENTITLED
OR BELIEVE THAT THAT’S SUPPOSED TO BE WHAT JUDGING IS IN FACT ABOUT BUT THIS UNDERMINES THE
TRIBUNAL THAT YOU HAVE BEEN NOMINATED BY THE PRESIDENT TO
SERVE ON. NO FREE PEOPLE OVER TIME WOULD ACCEPT A JUDICIARY
THAT IMPOSES IT’S OWN POLICY PREFERENCES ABSENT FIDELITY TO
LEGAL PRINCIPLE, THERE IS A BETTER WAY FOR THE SENATE TO
APPROACH ITS WORK, THIS PROCESS IN MY OPINION SHOULD BE ABOUT
YOUR QUALIFICATIONS, ABOUT YOUR CHARACTER AND PERHAPS MOST
IMPORTANTLY ABOUT YOUR APPROACH TO JUDGING, YOUR OWN VIEW ABOUT
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY, IT SHOULD NOT BE
ABOUT RESULTS IN A SELECT NUMBER OF CASES. NOW YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY
EXCEPTIONALLY WELL QUALIFIED. EVEN YOUR STAUNCHEST KRITS YO
NOT CLAIM OTHERWISE, YOUR ACADEMIC PEDIGREE, YOUR
EXPERIENCE AS A PRACTICING LAWYER, YOUR EXPERIENCE IN
GOVERNMENT AND YOUR 12 YEARS EXPERIENCE SITTING ON WHAT MANY
REFER TO THE HIGHEST CORPS OF THE LAND,
THE WASHINGTON, DC CIRCUIT. YOU SAID SOME OF THE MOST CRITICAL
MOMENTS IN HISTORY WERE 100 JUDGES STOOD UP TO OTHER
BRANCHES, YOU SAID THAT JUDGES CANNOT BE INFLUENCED INTO
WORRYING ABOUT TRANSIENT POP LATER WHEN YOU ARE TRYING A CASE
AND ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DUTIES OF A JUDGE IS STO STAND
UP FOR THE UNPOPULAR PARTY WHO HAS THE CORRECT POSITION AND YOU
HAVE LIVED UP TO YOUR WORDS DURING YOUR TIME ON THE BENCH. ERCH —
EVERYONE KNOWS THAW SERVED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION YET WHEN
YOU BECAME A JUDGE, IN ONLY TWO YEARS, YOU RULED AGAINST THE
BUSH ADMINISTRATION A TOTAL OF EIGHT TIMES, FOR YOU IT DOES NOT
MATTER WHO THE PARTIES ARE, IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT YOU MAY
HAVE WORKED FOR AN ADMINISTRATION BEFORE YOU BALM A
JUDGE, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS YOUR COMMITMENT TO
CORRECTLY APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS OF ANY PARTICULAR
CASE. AS FAR AS YOUR APPROACH TO JUDGING, YOU HAVE APPROPRIATE
RESPECT FOR PRECEDENT. YOU HAVE COAT AUTHORS AN 800 PAGE BOOK ON
PRECEDENT THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS, EXPLAINS THAT A CHANGE
IN A COURT’S MEMBERSHIP ALONE SHOULD NOT THROW FORMER
DECISIONS INTO RECONSIDERATION OR JUSTIFY THEIR REVERSAL. YOU
HAVE EXPLAINED THAT A PRESIDENT CAN BE OVERRULED. IT MUST NOT BE JUST WRONG BUT A CASE WITH
SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCES, YOU HAVE OVERRULED THE PRESIDENT, IN
EACH OF THOSE CASES IT INVOLVED A UNANIMOUS DECISION REACHED BY
YOUR COLLEAGUES AND YOU FOLLOW BINDING PRECEDENT EVEN IF YOU
BELIEVE THE BINDING PRECEDENT WAS ITSELF WRONGLY DECIDED. YOU
DECIDE CASES BASED ON LEGAL MERITS NOT BASED ON THE IDENTIFY
OF THE PARTIES AND CERTAINLY NOT BASED ON A POLITICAL BELIEF THAT
YOU MAY HARBOR, WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD THAT YOUR NOMINATION WILL
SOMEHOW BE BAD FOR WOMEN R FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, FOR LABOR
UNIONS AND CIVIL RIGHTS AND A HOST OF OTHER THINGS THAT
AMERICANS HOLD NEAR AND DEER, I HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF CASES IN
WHICH YOU HAVE RULED FOR PEOPLE IN EACH OF THOSE GROUPS BUT
THERE IS A MORE FUNDAMENTAL POINT HERE THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE. THE JUDICIARY’S
DECISION ARE LEGITAMATE ONLY TO THE EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE BASED ON SOUND LEGAL RULING, JUR RIGGING DECISIONS
AND BACK FILLING LEGAL REASONING TO REACH A PLALY ACCEPTABLE
RESULT IN A PARTICULAR CASE, NO MATTER HOW DESIRABLE THAT RESULT
MIGHT BE IN ANY INSTANCE IS NOT A GOOD MODE OF JUDICIAL DECISION
MAKING AND KNOW FREE PEOPLE PROPORTING TO
HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY SHOULD SUPPORT THAT, I BELIEVE
WE ARE REQUIRED TO ASK JUDGE KAVANAUGH HARD
QUESTIONS, THAT IS REQUIRED FOR ISSUING LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS
EVEN LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS ON THE HIGHEST COURT ON THE LAND
BUT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH AN OPINION HE HAS WRITTEN MAKE A
LEGAL ARGUMENT AS TO THIS ISSUE, EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK ITS WRONG,
DO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RESULTS AS IF THE RESULT ITSELF
IS PROOF THAT HE IS WRONG WHEN YOU SEPARATE OUT THE RESULT FROM
THE LEGAL ANALYSIS, FROM THE FACTS AND HOW THEY INTERACT WITH
THE LAW IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE AND DO NOT ASK HIM TO MAKE
PROMISES ABOUT OUTCOMES IN PARTICULAR CASES, IF IT’S
UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO IMPOSE A LITMUS TEST, IT’S
SURELY UNACCEPTABLE FOUR THE UNITED STATES SENATE TO DO SO.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, THANK YOU.
>>>SENATOR WHITEHOUSE. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>>WHEN IS PATTERN EVIDENCE OF BIAS? IN
COURT, PATTERN IS EVIDENCE OF BIAS ALL OF THE TIME. EVIDENCE
ON WHICH JURIES AND TRIAL JUDGES RELY TO
SHOW A COMMON SCHEME. WHEN DOES A PATTERN PROVE BIAS? I WISH
THIS WERE AN IDLE QUESTION, IT’S RELEVANT TO THE PATTERN OF THE
ROBERTS COURT WHEN IT’S REPUBLICAN MAJORITY GOES OFF ON PARTISAN EX EXCURSIONS THROUGH THE CIVIL
LAW. WHEN ALL FIVE REPUBLICAN PARTNERSHIP’S, THE REPUBLICAN
FIVE GO RAIDING OFF TOGETHER AND NO DEMOCRATIC APPOINTEE JOINS
THEM. DOES THIS HAPPEN OFTEN? THE ROBERTS FIVE HAS GONE ON
ALMOST 80 OF THESE PARTISAN EXCURSIONS TINS
ROBERTS HAS BECOME CHIEF, THAT’S A LONG TIME AND THERE IS A
FEATURE TO THESE 80, THEY ALMOST ALL
REFLECT INTERESTS OF THE IRN PARTY. WHEN THEY GO OFF ON THE
REPUBLICAN EX KERGSES, THERE IS A BIG REPUBLICAN AND CORPORATE
PARTISAN INTEREST INVOLVED 92% OF THE TIME. INAUDIBLE. LETS LOOK AT THE 73 CASES, 73 IS A LOT OF CASES. INAUDIBLE.
EVERY TIME A BIG REPUBLICAN CORPORATE OR PARTISAN INTEREST
IS INVOLVED, THE BIG REPUBLICAN INTEREST WINS, EVERY TIME. LET
ME REPEAT. IN 73 PARTISAN DECISIONS WHERE THERE IS A BIG
REPUBLICAN INTEREST AT STAKE, THE BIG REPUBLICAN INTEREST
WINS. EVERY DAMMED TIME, THUS THE MAD SCRAMBLE OF REPUBLICAN
INTEREST GROUPS TO PROTECT A REPUBLICAN FIVE THAT WILL RELY
BLI GIVE THEM WIN, REALLY BIG WINS SOMETIMES, I NOTICE WHEN
THE ROBERTS FIVE SADDLES UP, THESE SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES
ARE ANYTHING BUT JIRLY CONSERVATIVE. THEY READILY
OVERTURN PRECEDENTS, TOSS OUT STATUES PASSED BY WIDE
BIPARTISAN MARGINS AND DECIDE ON BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES, ORIGINALLALLISM, STARI DESISIS, ALL OF THESE PRINCIPLES
ALL HAVE THE HOOF PRINCIPLES OF THE ROBERTS FIVE ALL ACROSS
THEIR BACKS WHEREVER THOSE PRINCIPLES GOT IN THE WAY OF
THOSE WINS FOR THE BIG REPUBLICAN INTERESTS. THE LITANY
OF ROBERTS FIVE DECISION EXPLAINS WHY BIG REPUBLICAN
INTERESTS WANT JUDGE KAVANAUGH ON THE COURT SO BADLY. SO BADLY
THAT REPUBLICANS TRAMPLED SO MUCH SENATE PRECEDENT TO PUSH
HIM THROUGH, LETS REVIEW THE HIGHLIGHT REAL. WHAT DO
REPUBLICAN INTERESTS WANT. FIRST THEY WANT TO WIN ELECTIONS, WHAT
DOES THE ROBERTS FIVE DELIVER, HELP
REPUBLICAN GERRYMANDERER ELECTIONS, HELP REPUBLICANS KEEP
MINORITY VOTERS KEEP AMERICANS FROM THE POLLS, SHELL BY COUNTY FIVE TO FOUR AND ABBOT VERSUS
PEREZ FIVE TO FOUR DESPITE THE JUDGE FINDING THAT THEY
INTENDED TO TARGET MINORITY VOTERS AND HELPING MONEY FLOW TO
ELECTIONS, BIG MONEY LOVE THE POWER TO BUY ELECTIONS, LOBBY
AND BULLY CONGRESS, BULLOCK 5 TO FOUR AND THE INFAMOUS FIVE TO
FOUR, CITIZENS UNITED DECISION WHICH I BELIEVE IS ON THE
COURT’S ROLE OF SHAME. WHAT ELSE DO BIG INFLUENCERS WANT? DO GET
OUT OF COURTROOMS, BIG INFLUENCERS HATE COURTROOMS
BECAUSE THEIR LOBBYING AND THREATENING
AND LENGTHEERING DOES NOT WORK OR IS NOT SUPPOSED TO, IN A
COURTROOM, THEY HAVE TO SUFFER THE INDIGNITY OF EQUAL TREATMENT
SO THE ROBERTS FIVE PROTECTS THEM FROM CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS,
WAL-MART VERSUS DUKE, FIVE TO FOUR, THE ROBERTS FIVE HELPS TO
STEER CUSTOMERS AWAY FROM COURTROOMS AND INTO MANDATORY
ARBITRATION, CONCEPTION AND RENT ACENTER, ALL ROBERTS FIVE. NOW
WORKERS CANNOT ARBITRATE THEIR CLAIMS AS A GROUP. HINDERING
ACCESS TO THE COURTHOUSE FOR PLAINTIFFS GENERALLY, PROTECTING
PROTECTING CORPORATIONS FROM BEING TAKEN TO COURT.
LEDBETTER, FIVE TO FOUR, GROSS, FIVE TO FOUR, HARASSMENT, VANCE,
FIVE TO FOUR, RETALIATION AND NASSAR, FIVE TO FOUR, EVEN
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, FIVE TO FOUR,
CORPORATIONS ARE NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, JURIES ARE, INDEED
COURTROOM JURIES ARE THE ONE ELEMENT OF GOVERNMENT DESIGNED TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM
ENCROACHMENTS BY PRIVATE WEALTH AND POWER SO THE RULES FROM THE
ROBERTS FIVE RULES OVER JURY RIGHTS EVERY TIME WITH NARY
MENTION OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT, PLUS HARRIS VERSUS
QUIN AND JANUS 5 TO FOUR OVERTURNING A 40 YEAR PRECEDENT. LOTS OF BIG REPUBLICAN INFLUENCERS
ARE POLLUTERS WHO LIKE TO POLLUTE COST FREE, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS FIVE TO FOUR, MICHIGAN VERSUS
EPA 5 TO FOUR AND IN THE FACE OF EMERGING CLIMATE
HAVOC, THE DECISION TO STOP THE EPA CLEAN POWER PLAN, PATTERN,
THEN THE DECISIONS ADVANCING A FAR RIGHT SOCIAL AGENDA, GONE GSH
GONZALEZ, HOBBY LOBBY, NIFLA LETTING STATES DENY WOMEN
TRUTHFUL INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR CHOICES, ALL FIVE TO FOUR, ALL
REPUBLICAN, ADD HELLER, REPRESENTING A THEORY A FORMER
CHIEF JUSTICE, THIS YEARS TRUMP VERSUS HAWAII, FIVE TO FOUR, RUBBER
RUBBER STAMPING THE MUSLIM BAN AND JANUS CAPITAL, FIVE TO FOUR,
NO WONDER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FEEL THE GAME IS RIGGED. BIG
REPUBLICAN GROUPS FUND THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY WHICH PICKS
THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEES, HOW THE NOMINEES WERE PICKED AND WHO WAS
IN THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED AND WHO HAD A VOTE OR A VETO.
THAT’S A DEEP DARK SCRECT. THEN BIG BUSINESS FUNDS THE JUDICIAL
CRISIS NETWORK WHICH RUNS DARK MONEY INFLUENCE CAMPAIGNS TO
INFLUENCE SENATORS IN CONFIRMATION VOTES. WHO PAYS
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THAT AND WHAT THEIR EXPECTATIONS ARE IS A
DEEP, DARK SECRET. THESE GROUPS ALSO FUND REPUBLICAN ELECTION
CAMPAIGNS WITH DARK MONEY AND KEEP THE IDENTIFY OF BIG DONORS
A DEEP DARK SCRECT AND 90% OF YOUR DOCUMENTS ARE TO US A DEEP
DARK SCRECT. WHEN THE NOMINEE IS ON THE COURT THE SAME BUSINESS
FUNDERS LIKE MEMBERS OF THE KOCH GROUP FILED AMICUS BRIEFS TO
SIGNAL THEIR WISHES TO THE REPUBLICAN FIVE, WHO IS BEHIND
THOSE, THAT’S A DEEP DARK SECRET. IT’S GOTTEN SO WEIRD
THAT REPUBLICAN JUSTICES SEND HINTS TO BIG BUSINESS INTERESTS
ABOUT HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO HELP THEM NEXT THEN BIG BUSINESS
INTERESTS RUSH OUT TO LOSE CASES JUST TO RUSH UP BEFORE THE
FRIENDLY COURT PRONTO, THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE JANUS
EPISODE. THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS IS THE BIGGEST LOBBY
FOR THEM ALL. BIG COAL, BIG FARMA, NOW THE CHAMBER WON NINE
OUT OF THE 10 CASES IT WEIGHED IN ON. THE REB ERTS FIVE HAVE
GIVEN THE CHAMBER 3-QUARTERS OF THEIR VOTE. THIS YEAR IN ALL
CIVIL CASES THEY VOTED FOR THE REPUBLICAN POSITION 90% OF THE
TIME, IN THE FOUR CASES I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED, 100%, PEOPLE ARE
NOTICING, VETERAN COURT WATCHERS SKYED THE COURTS SERVICE TO
REPUBLICAN INTERESTS, TOOBIN WROTE ON THE SUPREME COURT
ROBERTS HAS SERVED THE INTERESTS OF THE CONTEMPORARY REPUBLICAN
PARTY. THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY IS COMMITTED TO HARNESSING THE
SUPREME COURT TO AN IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA,
ORENSTEIN SAYS IT’S POLARIZED ALONG PARTY LINES IN A WAY THAT
PARALLELS OTHER INSTITUTIONS IN A FASHION WE HAVE NEVER SEEN AND
THE MORE THAN PUBLIC KNOWS IT TO, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THINKS
THAT THE SUPREME COURT TREATS CORPORATIONS MORE FAVORABLE THAN
INDIVIDUALS COMPARE TO VISA-VERSA BY A SEVEN TO ONE
MARGIN, 49% OF AMERICANS THINK CORPORATIONS GET SPECIAL
TREATMENT. NOW LOOK AT WHERE YOU FIT IN. A REPUBLICAN POLITICAL
OPERATIVE YOUR CAREER WHO HAS NEVER TRIED A CASE, YOU MADE
YOUR POLITICAL BONES HELPING THE PROSECUTION THE PRESIDENT
CLINTON AND LEAKING INFORMATION TO THE PRESS, YOU CULTIVATED
RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY ARCHITECT OF
YOUR COURT NOMINATIONS, ON THE WASHINGTON, DC CIRCUIT YOU GAVE
MORE THAN 50 SPEECHES TO THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY, THAT LOOKS
LIKE A DUGSING,S ON THE DC CIRCUIT YOU SHOWED YOUR
READINESS TO JOIN THE ROBERTS FIVE BY PROTECTING CORPORATIONS
FROM LIABILITY, HELPING POLLUTERS POLLUTE, KEEP INJURED
PLAINTIFFS OUT OF COURT AND PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE
CURRENT POWPTION OF THE — HELP OF THE CURRENT OCCUPANT OF
THE WHITE HOUSE, WHEN BIG BUSINESS TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
WEIGHED IN, 76%, THIS TO ME IS WHAT CORPORATE CAPTURE OF THE
COURTS LOOKS LIKE, THERE ARE BIG EXPECTATIONS FOR YOU, THE
SHADOWY DARK MONEY FRONT GROUP, THE JUDICIAL CRISIS NETWORK IS
SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY FOR YOUR CONFIRMATION, THE NRA HAS PUT
MILLIONS INTO YOUR NOMINATION SAYING YOU WILL BRAKE THE TIDE.
THEY HAVE BIG EXPECTATIONS ON HOW YOU VOTE ON GUNS, THE WHITE
HOUSE COUNSEL ADMITTED THERE IS A COHERENT PLAN WHERE THE JUDICIAL SELECTION AND THE
DEREGULATE — DEREGULATION EFFORT ARE THE SAME SIDE OF THE
SAME COIN, BIG POLLUTERS HAVE BIG EXPECTATIONS FOR YOU ON THE
DEREGULATION EFFORT. FINALLY YOU COME BEFORE US WHEN THE
PRESIDENT IS A SUBJECT THE ONGOING CRIMINAL VEX, YOU
DISPLAYED INTERVIEWS ON EXECUTIVE IMMUNITY FOR THE LAW,
IF YOU ARE IN THAT SEAT. THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BIG EXPECTATIONS
THAT YOU WILL PROTECT THE PRESIDENT FROM DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THAT SHOULD GIVE EVERY
SENATOR PAUSE, IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE YOU COACHED NOMINEES TO
TELL THE SENATE THAT THEY WILL ADD HERE TO STATUTORY TEXT AND
THEY HAVE NO IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA, FAIRY TALES, AT HIS HEARING,
JUSTICE ROBERTS INFAMOUSLY SAID HE WILL JUST CALL BALLS AND
STRIKES BUT THIS PATTERN, 73 TO ZERO OF THE ROBERTS FIVE
QUALIFIES HIM TO HAVE CORPORATE BADGES ON HIS
ROBES, HE TOLD THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY THAT
STARIDESISIS IS WHEN IT’S ON OUR SIDE. HE ASSURED US HE WAS NOT A
PHILOSOPHER KING AND PROMISED TO GIVE EQUAL CONCERN TO EVERY
PERSON MIGHTY OR MEEK, HOW DID THAT TURN OUT. GREAT FOR THE RICH AND MIGHTY, GORSUCH HAS
RULED FOR BIG BUSINESS INTERESTS IN 70% OF CASES AND IN EVERY
CASE WHERE HIS VOTE WAS DETERMINING, THE PRESIDENT
ASSURED EVANGELICALS HIS SUPREME COURT PICK WOULD ATTACK ROE
VERSUS WADE. YOUR WORDS MAKE CLEAR YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ROE
VERSUS WADE IS SETTLED LAW BECAUSE THE COURT CAN ALWAYS
OVERRULE IT’S PRECEDENT. MR. CHAIRMAN WE HAVE SEEN THIS MOVIE
BEFORE, WE KNOW HOW IT ENDS, THE SAD FACT IS THAT THERE IS NO
CONSEQUENCE FOR TELLING THE COMMITTEE FAIRY TALES ABOUT.
INAUDIBLE. OF LETTING THOSE BIG REPUBLICAN
INTERESTS KEEP WINNING FIVE TO FOUR PARTISAN DECISIONS, 73 TO
ZERO JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, EVERY TIME.
>>SENATOR >>CHAIRMAN I HAVE SOME
DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THIS UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST BE
ADDED TO THE RECORD. >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH WELCOME TO YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS,
DEMONSTRATING YOUR GOOD JUDGMENT YOUR WIFE WAS BORN AND RAISED IN
WEST TEXAS AND YOU AND SHE HAVE BEEN FRIENDS OF HEIDI AND MINE
FOR 20 YEARS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR DECADES OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND I
AM SORRY YOUR DAUGHTERS HAD TO ENDURE THE PUBLIC CIRCUS OF THIS
MORNING, I WANT TO DISCUSS WHAT THIS HEARING IS ABOUT AND WHAT
ITS NOT ABOUT, THIS HEARING IS NOT ABOUT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF
THE NOMINEE, JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS BY ANY OBJECTIVE MEASURE,
UNCREDIBLEY QUALIFIED FOR THE SUPREME COURT. EVERYONE AGREES
HE ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED FEDERAL JUDGES IN THE COUNTRY,
HE HAS IMPECCABLE ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS EVEN IF HE DID GO TO
YALE AND HE SERVED FOR A DECADE ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE D KRRK CIRCUIT, THE DEPTHINGS ARE NOT MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT JUDGE
— JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS NOT QUALIFIED. ALSO JUDGE KAVANAUGH
HAS OVER 300 PUBLIC OPINIONS WHICH AMOUNT TO 10,000 PAGES
ISSUED IN HIS ROLE AS A FEDERAL APPELLATE JUDGE, EVERYONE AGREES
A JUDGE’S RECORD IS BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT INDICATION OF
WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE THAT NOMINEE WILL BE, TELLINGLY WE
HAVE HEARD VERY LITTLE FROM DEMOCRATIC SENATORS ABOUT THE
ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S JUDICIAL RECORD,
THIRD IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND, TODAY IS ALSO NOT
ABOUT DOCUMENTS, WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF ARGUMENTS THIS MORNING
ABOUT DOCUMENTS, THERE IS AN OLD SAYING FOR TRIAL LAWYERS, IF YOU
HAVE THE FACTS, POUND THE FACTS, IF YOU HAVE THE LAW, POUND THE
LAW, IF YOU HAVE NEITHER POUND THE TABLE, WE ARE SEEING A LOT
OF TABLE POUNDING THIS MORNING, THE DEMOCRATS ARE FOCUSED ON
PROCEDURAL ISSUES BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIVE POINTS
STRONG ENOUGH TO DERAIL THE NOMINATION, THEY DO NOT HAVE
SUBSTANTIVE CRITICISM WITH THE JUDGE’S RECORD SO THEY ARE
TRYING TO DEAVERT ANYONE WITH PROCEDURAL ISSUES, THE CLAIMS
THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE PUTTING FORWARD ON DOCUMENTS DO NOT
WITHSTAND SERIOUS SCRUTINY , THE JUDGE HAS PRODUCED 511,009
511,009 — 511,948 PAGES. IT’S THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE
EVER SUBMITTED TO THIS COMMITTEE. THE MORE THAN HALF A
MILLION PAGES OF DOCUMENTS TUNED INTO THE COMMITTEE IS MORE THAN
THE NUMBERS OF PAGES WE HAVE RECEIVED FOR THE LAST FIVE
SUPREME COURT NOMINEES COMBINED. LISTEN TO THAT FEACT AGAIN, THE
OVER HALF A MILLION DOCUMENTS TURNED OVER TO THE COMMITTEE IS
MORE THAN HALF OF THE NUMBER OF THE DOCUMENTS TURNED OVER
COMBINED. MOST OF THE DOCUMENTS NOT TURNED OVER CONCERN HIS TIME
AS THE STAFF SECRETARY FOR GEORGE BUSH, THAT’S THE POSITION
IN CHARGE OF ALL OF THE PAPER THAT COMES INTO AND OUT OF THE
OVAL OFFICE, THE STAFF SECRETARY IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE PAPER
COMING INTO AND OUT OF THE OVAL OFFICE, THAT PAPER IS TYPICALLY
WRITTEN BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, BY
OTHER CABINET MEMBERS AND THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, THE STAFF
SECRETARY COLLECTS THEIR VIEWS AND TRANSFERS THE PAPER BACK AND
FOURTH, IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY OTHER
PEOPLE SAY NOTHING, ZERO ABOUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S VIEWS AND THEY
SAY NOTHING, ZERO ABOUT WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE JUDGE KAVANAUGH
WOULD MAKE. BUT THEY ARE BY NECESSITY THE MOST SENSITIVE AND
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS IN A WHITE HOUSE, THEY ARE THE
DOCUMENTS GOING TO THE PRESIDENT. THIS IS THE
ADVICE AND DELIBERATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT, WHY IS IT THAT THE
DEMOCRATS ARE PUTTING SO MUCH ENERGY IN SAYING HAND OVER THOSE
DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THEY KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT
PRESIDENT GORGE W BUSH’S WHITE HOUSE TEAM IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW
EVERY PIECE OF PAPER THAT WENT TO THE PRESIDENT TO BE MADE
PUBLIC ANY MORE THAN ANY OTHER WHITE HOUSE WOULD, NO WHITE
HOUSE WOULD ALLOW EVERY PIECE OF PAPER THAT WENT TO AND FROM THE
PRESIDENT TO BE MADE PUBLIC, THERE ARE RULES AND LAWS AND
PROCEDURES FOR WHEN AND HOW PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS BECOME
PUBLIC, THE REASON THE THE DEMOCRATS ARE FIGHTING SO LOUDLY
IS BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING A DEMAND
THAT THE PRESIDENT CANNOT MAKE, IT WOULD OPEN UP ALL SORTS THE FISHING
EXPEDITIONS TO RELITIGATE GEORGE BUSH’S TIME AS PRESIDENT BUT IT
IS AT THE END OF THE DAY AN ATTEMPT TO DISTRACT AND DELAY
AND THE MULTIPLE MOTIONS WE HAVE SEEN FROM DEMOCRATS, DELAY THIS
CONFIRMATION, THAT REVEALS THE WHOLE JOKE, THEIR OBJECTIVE IS
DELAY, WHAT IS THIS FIGHT ABOUT? ITS NOT ABOUT DOCUMENTS OR HIS
JUDICIAL RECORD, WHAT IS THE FEUT ABOUT, I BELIEVE THE FIGHT
IS NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS THAN AN ATTEMPT TO RELEGISLATE
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT WAS A HARD FOUGHT ELECTION
ALL THE WAY AROUND, IT WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN
60 YEARS WHERE AMERICANS WENT TO THE POLLS WITH A VACANT SEAT ON
THE SUPREME COURT, ONE THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT WOULD FILL.
AMERICANS KNEW WHO HAD BEEN IN THAT SEAT. THE LATE JUSTICE
ANTONIN SCALIA, ONE OF THE GREATEST JURISTS EVER TO SIT ON
THE SUPREME COURT, IT WAS THE FIRST TIME SINCE EISENHOWER’S
CAMPAIGN THAT A SUPREME COURT SEAT WAS ON THE BAT BALLOT. IT
WAS A MAJOR ISSUE OF CONTENTION IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,
DONALD TRUMP AND HILLARY CLINTON WERE BOTH CLEAR ABOUT WHAT KIND
OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES THEY WOULD APPOINT,
DURING ALL THREE DEBATES BOTH CANDIDATES WERE ASKED WHAT
QUALITIES WERE IMPORTANT, SECRETARY CLINTON’S ANSWER WAS
CLEAR, SHE WANTED A LIBERAL POGGIVE WILLING TO REWRITE THE
CONSTITUTION, WILLING TO IMPOSE LIBERAL POLICY AGENDAS THAT HE
CANNOT GET THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT SHE HOPED THAT FIVE
UNELECTED LAWYERS WOULD FORCE ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT’S WHAT
HILLARY CLINTON PROMISED FOR HER JUDICIAL NOMINEES, THEN
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP GAVE A DIFFERENT ANSWER, HE SAID HE WAS
LOOKING TO APPOINT JUDGES IN THE MOLD OF JUSTICE SCALIA, HE
WANTED TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION AND THE STATUES
ACCORDING TO THE TEXT AND UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW AND TREAT
PARTIES FAIRLY REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY ARE OR WHERE THIS COME
FROM. THEN CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP PUBLISHED A LIST OF
NOMINEES HE WOULD CHOOSE FROM WHEN FELLING THE SEAT PROVIDED
UNPRECEDENTED TRANSPARENCY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. ALL OF THAT
WAS LAYED BEFORE THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY WEBT TO THE POLLS AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE MADE A CHOICE, MY DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES ARE NOT
HAPPY WITH THE CHOICE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MADE BUT AS
PRESIDENT OBAMA FAMOUSLY SAID, ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES,
BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAD A CHANCE TO VOTE, A NATIONAL
REFERENDUM ON THE SUPREME COURT, I HAVE SAID A NUMBER OF TIMES,
JUSTICE GORSUCH AND JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION
WERE DECIDED BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN A DIRECT VOTE IN 2016,
THE DEMOCRATIC OB STRUCK IS ABOUT TRYING TO REVERSE THAT
ELECTION, THEY ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE CHOICE THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WANT, THERE IS A REASON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT STRONG
CONSTITUTIONALISTS ON THE SUPREME COURT. MOST AMERICANS
AND I KNOW THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF TEXANS WANT JUDGES
THAT WILL FOLLOW THE LAW AND NOT IMPOSE THEIR POLICY PREFERENCES
AND WHO WILL BE FAITHFUL TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS. WHO WILL UPHOLD
FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND THE SECOND
AMENDMENT, THAT’S WHAT THEY ELECTION WAS ABOUT, IF YOU LOOK
AT THESE, TAKE FREE SPEECH, IN 2014 EVERY DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE VOTED TO AMENDMENT THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION TO REPEAL THE FREE SPEECH PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND SADLY EVERY DEMOCRAT IN THE SENATE AGREED
WITH THAT POSITION, VOTING TO GIVE CONGRESS UNPRECEDENTED
POWER TO REGULATE POLITICAL SPEECH IT WAS A SAD DAY FOR THIS
INSTITUTION, YEARS EARLIER, TED KENNEDY THE GREAT LIBERAL LION
OPPOSED THIS AND SAID WE HAVE NOT AMENDED THE BILL OF RIGHTS
IN 200 YEARS AND NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO START. TED KENNEDY WAS
RIGHT THEN AND NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN THE UNITED STATES
HAD THE COURAGE TO AGREE WITH SENATOR KENNEDY AND INSTEAD THEY
VOTED PARTY LINE TO REPEAL THE FREE
SPEECH PARTS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. HOW ABOUT RELIGIOUS
LITIGATE, THAT’S ANOTHER FUNDAMENTAL PROTECTION THAT THE
DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE HAVE GOTTEN EXTREME AND RADICAL ON,
INDEED OUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES WANT JUSTICES WHO
WILL RUBBER STAMP EFFORTS LITIGATING AGAINST CATHOLIC
NUNS, THAT’S A RADICAL AND EXTREME POSITION, TO SHOW HOW
DRAMATIC SENATE DEMOCRATS HAVE GOTTEN EVERY SINGLE SENATE
DEMOCRAT A FEW YEARS AGO VOTED TO GUT THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
RESTORATION ACT. LEGISLATION THAT PASSED IN 1993, WAS SIGNED
INTO LAW BY BILL CLINTON, TWO DECADES LATER, THE DEMOCRATIC
PARTY HAS DETERMINED THAT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS
INCONVENIENT FOR THEIR POLICY AND POLITICAL OCTOBER R
OBJECTIVES THEY WANT JUSTICES THAT WILL FURTHER THAT ASSAULT
ON RELIGIOUS LITIGATE. LETS TAKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT, IN THE
DEBATES HILLARY CLINTON PROMISED TO NOMINATE JUSTICES TO OVERTURN
HELLER VERSUS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IS THE BIGGEST DECISION OF JUSTICE
JUSTICE SCALIA, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, HILLARY CLINTON
WANTED TO VOTE TO OVERTURN HELLER AND OUR DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES WANT THAT AS WELL, THAT WOULD BE A RADICAL
PROPOSITION, TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
DISSENTERS SAID, THEY SAID THE SEMED AMENDMENT PROTECT THE — SECOND AMENDMENT
PROTECTS INAUDIBLE. THE CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT WOULD MEAN
THAT CONGRESS WOULD PASS A LAW MAKING IT A FELONY, A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE FOR ANY AMERICAN TO OWN ANY FIREARM, NEITHER YOU NOR I
NOR ANY AMERICAN WOULD HAVE ANY HAVE YOU HAD RIGHT WHAT SO EVER
UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT, IT WOULD ERASE THE SECOND AMENDMENT
FROM THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THAT’S A BREATH TAKINGLY EXTREME
POSITION, IT’S WHAT HILLARY CLINTON PROMISED HER JUSTICES
WOULD DO, AT THE END OF THE SOMEDAY ITS WHAT THE FIGHT IS
ABOUT, WE KNOW EVERY DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE IS GOING
TO VOTE KNOW, WE DO NOT HAVE TO SPECULATE. EACH OF THEM HAS
PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED THAT THEY ARE VOTING NO. IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON
THE DOCUMENTS, THEY ANNOUNCED THAT THEY ARE VOTING NO AND MOST
OF THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ANNOUNCED THAT. BUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS
HANDED OVER MORE DOCUMENTS THAN ANY NOMINEE BEFORE HIM. THIS IS
NOT ABOUT DOCUMENTS OR QUALIFICATIONS OR RECORD, WHAT
IT IS ABOUT IS POLITICS, IT’S ABOUT DEMOCRATIC SENATORS
TRYING TO REVERSE INAUDIBLE. >>THEY WANTED JUDGES AND
JUSTICES WHO WILL BE FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTION, THAT’S WHY I
AM CONFIDENT AT THE END OF WHAT SHAKESPEARE WOULD DESCRIBE AS A
LOT OF SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING, I AM CONFIDENT THAT
JUDGE KAVANAUGH WILL BECOME JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH AND WILL
BE CONFIRMED TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
>>WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK NOW. WAIT A MINUTE.
WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK NOW AND 30 MINUTES IS WHAT THE
DEMOCRATS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, SO WE WILL RETURN AT 1:17, SO BE ON
TIME, PLEASE SPHSMED A CONTENTIOUS HEARING
THIS MORNING, IT’S CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO LET UP AS WE KEEP
WATCHING, DURING THE 30 MINUTE BREAK WE ARE GOING TO TALK WITH
OUR GUEST, WE ARE JOINED WITH BB BARNES WATCHING THIS HEARING,
ABSORBING THIS, THE HEARING BEGAN WITH A FIGHT AS SOON AS IT
STARTED. LETS GO BACK AND LISTEN TO CHAK — CHUCK
GRASSLEY AS HE BEGAN THE PROCEEDINGS AND GOT INTERRUPTED
RIGHT AWAY. >>MR. CHAIRMAN, I AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE SENATOR HARRIS WE HAVE RECEIVED 42,000 DOCUMENTS WE
WERE NOT ABLE TO REVIEW LAST NIGHT.
>>I KNOW THIS IS AN EXCITING DAY FOR ALL OF YOU.
>>MR. CHAIRMAN, IF WE CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED YOU MOVE TO ADJOURN MR. CHAIRMAN AMOVE TO
ADJOURN. MR. CHAIRMAN WE HAVE BEEN DENIED REAL ACCESS TO THE
DOCUMENTS WE NEED TO ADVISE AND CONSENT WHICH TURNS THIS HEARING
IN A CHARADE AND A MOCKERY OF OUR NORMS THERE I MOVE TO
ADJOURN THIS HEARING. >>THIS IS A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE. CANCEL BRETT KAVANAUGH. ADJOURN THIS HEARING.
CANCEL THIS HEARING. THERE IS A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>>WE ARE NOT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>>MR. CHAIRMAN I ASK FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE ON MY MOTION TO ADJOURN. >>THAT’S HOW THE MORNING BEGAN
WITH SENATOR HARRIS OF CALIFORNIA INTERRUPTING
FOLLOWED BY SENATOR HIRONO AND SENATOR BLUMENTHAL ASKING FOR
INFORMATION ABOUT ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AND ASKING TO GO INTO
RECESS UNTIL THEY GOT THAT BUT THE CHAIRMAN NOT RELENTING.
>>THIS IS QUITE AN OPENING, I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING LIKE
THIS, WE ARE LOOKING AT ONE OF THE MOST CONTENTIOUS AND
DISRUPTIVE HEARING SINCE JUDGE BORK, I DO NOT THINK WE HAVE THE
SAME ISSUES HERE, I THINK THAT THERE IS A CLEAR DEMOCRAT IG AND
REPUBLICAN — DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN DIVIDE. NOTHING HAS
CHANGED REPUBLICANS MIND ABOUT JUDGE KAVANAUGH BUT THIS IS A
REAL FIGHT AT LEAST IN TONE OF ARGUMENT. A LOT OF CHARGES OF
PARTISANSHIP, PLAYING POLITICS WITH COURT, THESE ARE JUST THE
KINDS OF THINGS THAT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HATE TO HEAR
ABOUT THEIR COURT THAT IS BEING PLAYED OUT IN THE HEARING TODAY.
>>THERE WERE ACCUSATIONS BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, WHAT ABOUT
CRITICISM OF THE NOMINEE HIMSELF, WE DID SEE SOME
SENATORS RAISING VERY POINTED CONCERNS, EVEN QUESTIONING THE
HONESTY OF THE NOMINEE. >>I WAS STRUCK BY THAT AS WELL.
YOU KNOW ONE THING THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS A
NOMINATION THAT CHANGES THE SUPREME COURT. IT WOULD PROVIDE
A CONSISTENT CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY IN A WAY THAT
CONSERVATIVES NEVER HAD WITH JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY WHO
RETIRED THIS SUMMER. KENNEDY WAS A REPUBLICAN NOMINEE HE WAS
CONSERVATIVE ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE TIME >>>SENATOR DURBIN IS SAYING
THAT THE NOMINEE HAS NOT BEEN TRUTHFUL ABOUT HIS PAST. WHAT IS
HE TALKING ABOUT. >>THIS GOES BACK TO JUDGE
KAVANAUGH’S CONFIRMATION TO THE LOWER COURT OF APPEALS IN
WASHINGTON, DC, HE WAS ASKED WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON DETAINEE POLICY AND TORTURE AND
JUDGE KAVANAUGH SAID HE DID NOT WORK ON THOSE ISSUES. IT CAME
OUT AFTER THE HEARING THAT HE WENT TO AT LEAST ONE MEETING
WHERE HE WAS BASICALLY ADVISING FOLKS ON WHAT KIND OF LEGAL
ARGUMENTS TO MAKE AND WHETHER JUSTICE KENNEDY FOR WHOM HE HAD
CLERKED ON THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE RECEPTIVE TO THE
ADMINISTRATION’S ARGUMENT THAT SOME OF THESE DETAINEES HAVE NO
LEGAL RIGHTS AND WOULD HAVE NO REPRESENTATION, HE SAID NO,
KENNEDY WOULD NOT GO FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND HE
TURNED OUT TO BE RIGHT WHEN THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED THIS
BUT SENATOR DURBIN AND OTHER DEMOCRATS SAID THAT WAS
MISLEADING ON JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH’S PART. THE JUSTICE
SAID HE WAS ASKED ABOUT A SPECIFIC THING AND IF HE HAD A
ROLE AND HE ANSWERED HE DID NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC ROLE BUT THAT
WOUND HAS CERTAINLY NOT HEALED. I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY TELLING
FOR HIM TO SAY, I AM GOING TO ASK YOU MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT
THIS WHEN YOU ARE UNDER OATH, THAT’S A REAL SIGNAL THAT HE
DOES NOT BELIEVE HIM AND I THOUGHT, JUDGE KAVANAUGH DID A
VERY GOOD JOB OF KEEPING A STONE FACE DURING ALL OF THIS BUT I
WOULD IMAGINE THAT’S ONE THAT WOULD GET UNDER HIS SKIN.
>>SENATOR DURBIN STARTED HIS COMMENTS ON A GENTLE NOTE THAT
WE CAN RELATE TO, HE SAID I HOPE YOU CAN EXPLAIN THIS TO YOUR
CHILDREN, THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU PER SE, BUT THEN HE WENT TO ATTACK THE NOMINEE WITH
CRITICISM, BUT I WANTED TO FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE, HE PUT IT IN
A POINTED WAY, THIS IS THE PRESIDENT’S NOMINEE AND IF
DEMOCRATS HAVE CONCERNS OVER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP AND WHAT
HE HAS DONE IN TERMS OF WH IT’S LEGAL, IN HIS PAST, THAT BRETT
KAVANAUGH CANNOT BE SEPARATED OR DIVORCED
IN THEIR MINDS FROM THE MAN THAT HAND PICKED HIM. HE SAID YOU ARE
HIS MAN, HOW MUCH WILL WE HEAR ABOUT THAT.
>>I THINK A LOT. THERE ARE TWO BIG ISSUES FOR BRETT KAVANAUGH,
ONE IS THE PRESIDENT WHO NOMINATED HIM AND THE OTHER IS
THE JUSTICE HE WILL REPLACE, THAT’S WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD THIS MORNING, A LOT OF SENATORS
REALLY FOCUSING ON PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, A MAN THEY
CONTINUE TO SAY WAS AN UNINDICTED COCONSPIRATOR AND
FACES HIS OWN LEGAL JEOPARDY, THEY POINT TO WRITINGS IN WHICH
JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS HAD WHERE HE THINKS IT’S DISTRACTING FOR THE
PRESIDENT TO BE SUBJECT TO A CIVIL LAWSUIT WHILE IN
OFFICE,, THAT CONGRESS CAN IMPEACH HIM IF IT’S SERIOUS,
THEY SAID THAT WAS MUSIC TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S EARS
AND THAT’S WHY BRETT KAVANAUGH WAS SELECTED. YOU WILL SEE THEM
HITTING THAT THEME A LOT. THE OTHER, YOU SAW WHEN SENATOR DIE —
SENATOR FEINSTEIN STARTED ON, THE TWO THINGS IMPORTANT TO HER,
ABORTION RICE AND GUNS, I THINK THAT WE WILL SEE A BACK AND
FOURTH FROM THE DEMOCRATS ON THESE TWO THEMES, THE PRESIDENT
WHO CHOSE HIM AND HOW HE WOULD CHANGE THE COURT ON ISSUE.
>>WHAT EFFORTS ARE REPUBLICANS MAKING TO SUPPORT THE NOMINEE.
>>THEY ARE SAYING HE IS QUALIFIED AND HE HAS WRITTEN 300
OPINIONS THAT ANYONE CAN READ TO FIND OUT WHERE HE IS ON THE
COURT AND WHAT HIS JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS LIKE, THEY ARE
SAYING YOU DO NOT HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THESE OLD RECORDS FROM
THE WHITE HOUSE WE HAVE A MORE CURRENT AND MORE IMPORTANT VIEW
OF WHAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH WOULD BE LIKE BY WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN AS A
JUDGE. YOU KNOW, THEY ARE ALSO SAYING, LISTEN, THIS IS WHAT
HAPPENS, THIS IS ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES AS YOU HEARD
SENATOR CRUZ SAYING. JUST AS BARAK OBAMA WAS ABLE TO NOMINATE
TWO LIBERAL JUSTICES NOW TRUMP IS
NOMINATING TWO CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE AND THAT’S THE WAY THIS
THING HAD A TO BE SAID. LEFT OUT WAS
THE FACT THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA
NOMINATED MERRICK GARLAND, BUT HE DID NOT GET A HEARING, THEY
LEFT ONE SEAT OPEN FOR THE PRESIDENT TO FILL, TED CRUZ
MAKES AN ARGUMENT THAT WE HAD A NATIONAL REFERENDUM ON THIS THREE IT WAS A PRETTY CHAOTIC
START OF THE HEARING. ONE OF THE NEWER
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SPOKE OUT AND AFTER
THE HEARING DEMANDED THAT IT BE
POSTPONED. THEY HAVE BEEN FRUSTRATED FOR SOME TIME BUT
WHAT THEY ARE ANGRY ABOUT TODAY IS THAT THERE WAS A LAST-MINUTE
DUMP OF ABOUT 42,000 RECORDS FROM BRETT
KAVANAUGH IN HIS TENURE AT THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE THAT DEMOCRATS
SAY THEY HAVE NOT REVIEWED BECAUSE THAT IS A LOT OF
PAPERWORK ON — THE NIGHT BEFORE A HEARING. DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN IRRITATED ABOUT HOW
REPUBLICANS HAVE PUSHED THROUGH THIS PROCESS FOR BRETT
KAVANAUGH. THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WERE FOCUSED ON WHAT
THEY CALL A SHAM OF A PROCESS BUT THE PROTESTERS IN THE AUDIENCE WERE SCREAMING ABOUT
THE KIND OF IMPACT THAT BRETT KAVANAUGH WOULD HAVE ON ACCESS
TO ABORTION, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OBAMA CARE,
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND OTHER KEY CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES
THAT HAD BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE COURT. WE COUNTED ABOUT SEVERAL
DOZEN PROTESTERS ESCORTED OUT. AS OF ABOUT 10:00 THIS MORNING
POLICE SAID THERE WERE ABOUT 22 ARRESTS. SO THE NUMBER IS A LOT
HIGHER NOW. THE CONTENTIOUS TONE IS NOT A SURPRISE TO BEGIN THIS
CONFIRMATION PROCESS BUT IT IS SURPRISING HOW ESCALATED IT GOT SO QUICKLY.
>>WE WERE SEEING HOW MANY TIMES DEMOCRATS INTERRUPTED THE
PROCEEDINGS SO WE SAW THE WHITE HOUSE POINTING OUT THE CENTER —
SENATOR. INTERRUPTED FIVE TIMES OR SIX TIMES HAVING A RUNNING TALLY.
>>THEY WERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, THEY SENT OUT, WITH
FEW EXCEPTIONS, THE HIGHER THE NUMBER THAT YOU INTERRUPTED, THE MORE LIKELY
YOU ARE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020, WHICH IS KIND OF AN
INTERESTING NOTE. REPUBLICANS DON’T SEEM TO BE
PHASED BY THE INTERRUPTIONS JUST YET. YOU SAW SOME OF THE
REPUBLICAN SENATORS DID A LITTLE BIT IMPATIENT AT TIMES AND
SENATOR ORRIN HATCH CALLED ONE OF THE PROTESTERS LOUDMOUTH AS
SHE WAS BEING ESCORTED FROM THE ROOM. THAT I THINK REPUBLICANS
AND THE WHITE HOUSE SEE THIS AS MY KRATZ BEING KIND OF IMMATURE
IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS OF CONSIDERING A SUPREME COURT
NOMINEE. THEY SAY LOOK THE REST OF THE
DEMOCRATS UNDER PRESSURE TO SUPPORT HIM SUCH AS HEIDI HIGH CAMP AND JOE DONNELLY, AND
DO THEY APPROVE OF THE SENATE DEMOCRATS BEHAVIOR IN THE ROOM
RIGHT NOW. >>A GREAT QUESTION. NEXT WE
HEAR FROM MORE SENATORS. AFTER THAT, WE WILL ALSO HEAR FROM THE NOMINEE
HIMSELF. DO YOU GET THE SENSE THAT ANYTHING THAT BRETT
KAVANAUGH WILL SAY WILL CHANGE BASED ON WHAT IS HAPPENING
TODAY?>>I DON’T THINK — NOT EVEN WITH THE
STATEMENT LATER TODAY BUT WHAT BRETT KAVANAUGH SAYS IN HIS
QUESTIONING TOMORROW BARRING A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT WILL CHANGE
THE MINDS OF ANYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE. THIS COMMITTEE IS
PRETTY DIVIDED AND VERY PARTISAN. WHILE NOT ALL 10
DEMOCRATS HAVE OFFICIALLY DECLARED THEIR OPPOSITION TO CAVANAUGH’S NOMINATION I THINK THEY WILL ALL BE AT THE
END OF THE DAY. I THINK THE SWING VOTES WE DISCUSSED
EARLIER, ACTUALLY DON’T SIT ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THEY
SAID THEY WOULD BE WATCHING THE HEARING VERY INTENTLY TO SEE
BRETT KAVANAUGH’S ANSWERS BUT I DON’T THINK ANYBODY’S MINDS WILL
CHANGE WITH HIS STATEMENTS LATER TODAY OR THOSE THAT FOLLOW LATER THIS WEEK.>>THANK YOU SO MUCH SHE IS LIVE
INSIDE THE HEARING ROOM GIVING HER PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT IT WAS
LIKE. AMBER PHILLIPS NOW JOINS ME.
>>HELLO. >>DID ANYTHING CHANGE IN TERMS
OF WHERE THINGS ARE GOING, HOW LIKELY THE CONFIRMATION IS, IF
DEMOCRATS WILL GET ACCESS TO MORE OF THESE RECORDS, HAVE
THERE BEEN ANY ADVANCEMENTS ON THAT AFTER THIS MORNING?
>>NO. NOT A CENTIMETER. DEMOCRATS SHOWED THEIR HAND EARLY ON WHEN
THEY STARTED THIS HEARING AND SAID LET’S END IT BEFORE THEY
EVEN STARTED BECAUSE WE FEEL FOR MANY REASONS THIS NOMINATION IS
NOT FAIR. IT IS MOVING TOO QUICKLY. THEY FOUGHT FOR ABOUT
AN HOUR, A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT, AND THEN THE HEARING WENT
ON. SO DEMOCRATS PULLED OUT THEIR NUCLEAR OPTION AT THE VERY
BEGINNING AND LOST THAT BATTLE. AGAIN, THE BROADER
QUESTION OF THE DOCUMENTS, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THERE ARE
NOT DOCUMENTS THAT CAN BE PRODUCED QUICKLY EVEN IF
REPUBLICANS HAD THEM. LET’S SAY REPUBLICANS
HAVE THEM IN THE BACK AND THEY SAID NEVERMIND, DEMOCRATS, YOU
ARE RIGHT, LET’S READ THOSE. THE NATIONAL ARCHIVE HAD SAID THERE ARE MILLIONS OF
THEM BUT WE JUST CAN’T GET TO THEM IN TIME. IT IS UP TO THE
PRIVATE BUSH LAWYER TO WEED THROUGH THEM AND HAND THEM OUT.
SO THERE AREN’T DEMOCRATS THAT DOCUMENTS — DOCUMENTS THAT DEMOCRATS CAN
GET. SO THEY TRIED TO STOP THIS HEARING. WE HAVE SEEN DOWN THE
LINE FROM REPUBLICANS THAT THEY ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF CAVANAUGH
— BRETT KAVANAUGH..
>>WHAT ONE OF THE DEMOCRATS SAID IS THAT HE APPEALED TO
JUDGE KAVANAUGH USING THE MORALITY OF THIS SHOULD BE
DONE IN A PROPER WAY WITH A FULL VETTING. BUT CLEARLY HE IS UNLIKELY TO
SAY LET’S SLOW THINGS DOWN UNTIL EVERYBODY CAN GET A GOOD LOOK. I
WANT TO POINT OUT THERE IS THIS 30 YEAR WINDOW THAT THE CAT
DEMOCRATS ARE SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR ACCESS TO AND WE SAW
A CHART OF THAT AND DURING HIS TIME IN
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THEY ARE SAYING WE WANT TO SEE WHAT
HAPPENED DURING THAT TIME AND WE SEE NOTHING FROM THAT SPREAD OF
YOUR CAREER. ONE THING THE DEMOCRATS COULD DO, THEY COULD WALK OUT OF
THE HEARING AND LEAVE IT. BUT THEY WOULD NOT THEN HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HOLD BRETT KAVANAUGH’S FEET TO THE
FIRE. THEY WOULD LOSE A CHANCE TO GRILL HIM ARE ASKING THE
TOUGH QUESTIONS AND HAVE THEIR MOMENT IN FRONT OF THE CAMERAS
AND MICROPHONE AND TO HAVE A SAY IN THIS PART OF AMERICAN
HISTORY. >>THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT
IS WHY BARRING SOMETHING UNFORESEEN, THE
DEMOCRATS WILL CONTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING,
INCLUDING WHEN THE QUESTIONS ARE ASKED BECAUSE THEY KNOW THERE IS
NOTHING THEY CAN DO TO STOP THIS. ANY TIME THAT YOU ARE
TRYING TO STOP A SUPREME COURT HEARING IN A VERY UNPRECEDENTED
WAY, AND ALSO APPEAL TO THE ACTUAL SUPREME COURT, YOU HAVE LOST WHAT LITTLE
LEVERAGE YOU HAD. THAT IS THE POSITION DEMOCRATS FIND
THEMSELVES IN. OF COURSE, WE TALKED BEFORE THIS HEARING
STARTED THAT IT IS NOT ALL LOST TO THEM POLITICALLY. THEY CAN
TRY TO USE THIS MOMENT TO SHOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO THE NATION
AS REPUBLICANS TRYING TO RUSH THE SUPREME COURT
NOMINEE WHO WILL OVERTURN ABORTION AND GUNS. THEY BELIEVE
AMERICANS TEND TO SIDE WITH DEMOCRATS ON THOSE MAJOR SOCIAL
ISSUES. SO WHAT THEY CAN DO IS USE THIS MOMENT TO TRY TO
ILLUSTRATE KAVANAUGH AS THE BAD GUY AND REPUBLICANS AIDING AND
TRYING TO GET HIM ON THE SUPREME COURT.
>>IT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER THAT
THE MORE TIMES YOU ARE LIKELY TO INTERRUPT, THE MORE LIKELY IT
WAS SOMEONE WHOSE NAME IS BEING FLOATED AROUND AS THE 2020
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE IS COREY BOOKER AND
HAD AN EXCHANGE WITH CHAIRMAN CHUCK GRASSLEY. LET’S LISTEN TO THEM AND THAT BATTLE UNFOLDING
EARLIER THIS MORNING. >>BE RECOGNIZED, SIR? I APPEAL
TO THE CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE MYSELF OR ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES .
>>YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER. >>I APPEAL TO BE RECOGNIZED ON
YOUR SENSE OF DECENCY AND INTEGRITY. EVEN THE DOCUMENTS
YOU HAVE REQUESTED, MR. CHAIRMAN, EVEN THE ONES YOU
SAID, THE LIMITED DOCUMENTS YOU REQUESTED, THIS COMMITTEE HAS
NOT RECEIVED. THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE —
>>THIS COMMITTEE SERVE AS A VIOLATION OF THE VALUES I HAVE
HEARD YOU TALK ABOUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. WHAT IS THE RUSH?
WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO HIDE BY NOT HAVING THE DOCUMENTS OUT
FRONT? WHAT IS THE RUSH AND WHAT ARE WE HIDING BY NOT LETTING
THOSE DOCUMENTS COME OUT. THIS COMMITTEE IS ABOUT — VIOLATION
OF THE VALUES THAT WE OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE
STRIVEN FOR, TRANSPARENCY. WE ARE RUSHING THROUGH THIS PROCESS
IN AN UNNECESSARY WAY. I APPEAL FOR THE MOTION TO AT LEAST BE
VOTED ON AND AT LEAST LET’S HAVE A VOTE. BECAUSE WHEN WE ASKED TO
HAVE A MEETING ON THIS ISSUE, IT WAS DENIED, EVEN THE RIGHT TO
MEET. SO HERE WE ARE HAVING THE MEETING TO — AT LEAST DEBATE
THIS ISSUE LET’S CALL A VOTE. I APPEAL TO YOUR SENSE OF FAIRNESS
AND COMMITMENT YOU MADE TO TRANSPARENCY. THIS VIOLATES WHAT
YOU HAVE EVEN SAID AND CALLED FOR, SIR, YOU HAVE CALLED FOR
DOCUMENTS. LIMITED DOCUMENTS. WE THOUGHT THERE SHOULD BE MORE. WE
HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE EVEN CALLED FOR.
TASTE UPON YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES, YOUR OWN VALUE, I CALL TO AT LEAST
HAVE A DEBATE OR VOTE ON THESE ISSUES AND NOT FOR US TO RUSH
THROUGH THIS.
>>[APPLAUSE]>>MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE HEARD CALLS FOR —
>>I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO SENATOR BOOKER. I RESPECT VERY
MUCH A LOT OF THINGS YOU DO, YOU SPOKE ABOUT MY DECENCY — YOU SUCK ABOUT MY
DECENCY AND INTEGRITY, AND I THINK YOU
ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MY DECENCY AND INTEGRITY.>>COREY BOOKER AND CHUCK
GRASSLEY THERE. DID SENATOR BOOKER HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THERE?
>>YES. I THINK HE DOES. >>BOTH SIDES HAVE ABSOLUTELY
OVERSTEPPED THEIR BOUNDS ON THE RHETORIC SURROUNDING THIS
ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY GET DOWN TO THE NUMBERS. HOWEVER, THERE IS A CASE TO BE MADE THAT DEMOCRATS ARE RIGHT
THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE NOT NECESSARILY BEEN FORTHCOMING
WITH DOCUMENTS. THAT IT IS AN ALLEGATION OF PROVING THEY
ARE TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS,
REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO RUSH THROUGH GETTING KAVANAUGH TO THE
SUPREME COURT BY THE OCTOBER TERM AND CRITICALLY BEFORE THE
MIDTERM. AND THERE IS JUST TOO MANY DOCUMENTS TO GET THROUGH.
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES, WHICH WOULD BE THE NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR
KNOW THAT SAID I CAN GIVE YOU ALL OF THEM BY OCTOBER, THAT IS
TOO LATE FOR REPUBLICANS. SO THE BUSH LAWYER STEPPED IN AND SAID
I WILL REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE TIME IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND
THAT ARGUABLY GIVES CONTENT TO IT. THEY ARE ALLEGING THINGS
THAT ARE NOT PROVABLE THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE BEING HAND-PICKED.
ONE THING THEY COULD POINT TO THAT THE WASHINGTON POST FACT
CHECKING TEAM HAS UNDERSCORED IS THAT
REPUBLICANS ON THE BUSH LAWYER ARE UNDERSELLING KAVANAUGH’S
TIME AS THE STAFF SECRETARY. IT WAS A BIG SOUNDING NAME BUT IT WAS BASICALLY HE WAS THE GUY WHO
PUT MEMOS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT FOR THREE YEARS AT A VERY
CRITICAL TIME AFTER 9/11 AND WHEN THEY WERE DEBATING TORTURE
AND DEBATING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. AND REPUBLICANS HAVE NOT PULLED
THOSE DOCUMENTS. THEY SAY THERE IS NO NEED TO. IT DOES NOT DEAL
WITH HIM AS A JUDGE. DEMOCRATS ACTUAL — ACCURATELY POINT OUT
THAT KAVANAUGH HAS CALLED THIS MOMENT AND THOSE FEW YEARS
VERY FORMATIVE FOR HIM AS A JUDGE. AND THE 30 MONTH WINDOW
WE SAW BLACKED OUT INVOLVES A LOT OF HIS TIME AS STAFF
SECRETARY THAT WE DON’T KNOW ABOUT.
>>TELL US ABOUT WHAT THE MOOD IS LIKE ON CAPITOL HILL?
>>WE ARE IN THE ROTUNDA WHERE THE MEDIA HAS CERTAINLY BEEN CAMPING OUT AND DOING REPORTS
FROM TIME TO TIME ON THE FIREWORKS THAT HAPPENED THIS
MORNING. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY STRUCK ME IS THAT IF YOU HAVE BEEN AROUND
WASHINGTON A WHILE, YOU KNOW THE SENATE IS A VERY DELIBERATIVE
BODY AND ALL ABOUT DECORUM AND ORDER AND FOLLOWING THE RULES.
YOU CERTAINLY SAW THAT GO OFF THE RAILS THIS MORNING AT THE
START OF THAT HEARING. AND BASICALLY THROUGHOUT THE
HEARING. I COULD THINK OF A FEW COMMENTS BY SOME SENATORS THAT
ILLUSTRATE THAT AND YOU HAD COREY BOOKER SAY WHAT IS THE
RUSH AND WHY ARE WE TRYING TO PUSH THIS THROUGH AND WHAT ARE
WE TRYING TO HIDE. YOU HAD SENATOR BLUMENTHAL FROM
CONNECTICUT THAT AS THIS PROCESS GOES FORWARD, THE PROCESS WILL
BE FOREVER TAINTED AND STAINED, VERY HARD LANGUAGE. BUT THEN YOU
HAD REPUBLICANS IN THE SAME HEARING FIRING BACK AND SOMEONE SAYING IF THIS
IS A COURT OF LAW, THE OTHER SIDE WOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT
OF COURT FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR. THIS IS A CAN — CAN — LIKE MOB
RULE. YOU HAD ALL OF THESE EMOTIONS AND POLITICS OF 2018 IN
ITS RAW AND FULLEST FORM COMING TO THE SENATE IN A PLACE WHERE
IT IS DELIBERATIVE AND PEOPLE TRY TO BE NICE TO EACH OTHER EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY
NOT APPEAR TO BE BEHIND EACH OTHER’S BACKS BUT ON THE PUBLIC
FACE OF IT THERE ARE RULES AND DECORUM TO FOLLOW AND THAT
WAS NOT THE CASE HERE. I WILL LEAVE YOU WITH WHAT SENATOR
HATCH SAID. HE SAID I KNOW A GOOD NOMINEE WHEN I SEE ONE. AND
THAT BRETT KAVANAUGH IS EMINENTLY QUALIFIED FOR THIS
POSITION. MAYBE THE RIGHTIST MOMENT OF THE MORNING IF YOU CAN CALL IT
WAS WHEN HE SAID, APPARENTLY HE LIKES TO EAT PASTA WITH CATCHUP
AND NOT EVERYBODY IS PERFECT.
>>THERE WERE SOME STRIKING MOMENTS VISUALLY AND WE TALKED
ABOUT HOW EVEN THE WHITE HOUSE IS TAKING A TALLY OF WHICH
DEMOCRATS WERE INTERRUPTING THE PROCEEDINGS. I THINK THE
DEMOCRATS FEEL IT IS A BADGE OF HONOR TO BE ON THAT LIST. THEY
WOULD LOVE TO BE AT THE TOP OF THAT TALLY BECAUSE IT DOES FEED
THEIR HUNGER FOR SOME WAY TO STOP THIS PROCESS. WHAT DID YOU
MAKE OF INDIVIDUALISM OF ORRIN HACH, WHO IS A VERY SENIOR
SENATOR, SORT OF BEING INTERRUPTED BY
THESE YOUNG PEOPLE MOSTLY STANDING UP AND YELLING OUT, SOME OLDER PEOPLE
AS WELL, WE SAW A REAL RANGE OF RACES AND AGES INTERRUPTING THE
PROCEEDINGS AND AMONG THE PUBLIC BODY ALLOWED IN THERE. WAS THERE
A WINNER IN THAT VISUAL ? BECAUSE ONE MIGHT THINK
REPUBLICANS WOULD HAVE COME OUT ON TOP TRYING TO PROCEED, BUT
ORRIN HACH WAS A LITTLE BEFUDDLED BY IT AT TIMES.
>>CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY AS WELL , ANOTHER DEMOGRAPHICALLY OLDER
SENATOR, DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THOSE PROTESTERS.
>>THEY HAVE DEALT WITH THAT A LOT OF TIMES BEFORE.
>>HE DIDN’T TRY TO STOP THEM A NUMBER OF TIMES BEFORE AND AT
TIMES, SENATOR DICK DURBIN SAID I BELIEVE IT WAS HIM, HE SAID OKAY, I CAN’T
TALK OVER THIS STUFF. THESE GUYS NEED TO STOP.
>>I THINK IT WAS LEAHY.
>>HE SAID I DON’T CARE WHAT SIDE THEY ARE ON. SO I FEEL LIKE THE PROTESTS KEPT
COMING AND REPUBLICANS WERE NOT ABLE TO STOP THEM EVEN WHEN YOU HAD A
DEMOCRAT PLEADING FOR HELP ON THAT. I THINK VISUALLY AND
SYMBOLICALLY, IT MADE IT SEEM LIKE IT SET THIS NARRATIVE THAT
DEMOCRATS WERE TRYING TO CREATE IT AND DEMOCRAT REPUBLICANS ARE
PUSHING FOR THIS NOMINATION DESPITE THEM BEING OPPOSED TO IT. KAVANAUGH IS ONE OF THE
MOST UNPOPULAR SUPREME COURT NOMINEES IN RECENT MEMORY
ACCORDING TO A GALLUP POLL BACKED UP BY A POST-ABC POLL OUT TODAY. THERE IS A PARTISAN
DIVIDE TO THAT, OF COURSE. I WOULD BET MY LIFE THAT ALL THOSE
PEOPLE PROTESTING WERE DEMOCRATS OR LEANED DEMOCRATIC AT THE VERY
LEAST. BUT KAVANAUGH IS REALLY TO SMEAR FOR THIS TYPE OF PARTISAN MOMENT AND THE
REPUBLICANS DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THAT.
>>WE DO EXPECT TO HEAR FROM THE NOMINEE HIMSELF LATER TODAY.
HERE IS THE GAME PLAN. WE WILL HEAR FROM THE REST OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH ABOUT HALF OF
THEM SO FAR STILL TO TALK OR MANY OF THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE OF
THIS YOUNG GENERATION WHO HAVE BIGGER POLITICAL AMBITIONS THAN
EVEN THE SENATE. SO WE WILL HEAR FROM THEM. THEN WE WILL HEAR
INTRODUCTIONS OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH FROM THE LIKES OF FORMER SECRETARY CONDOLEEZZA RICE AND
ROB PORTMAN OF OHIO AND THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM THE NOMINEE
HIMSELF AFTER HE IS SWORN IN. WE DON’T EXPECT HIS WORDS TO BE
VERY SURPRISING OR EXPLOSIVE. THEY ARE VERY PREDICTED . YOU CAN SEE THE JUDGE
RETURNING THERE INTO THE ROOM. THIS WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO ASSESS FOR THEMSELVES HOW THEY FEEL
ABOUT THIS NOMINEE. >>IT IS REALLY THE FIRST TIME
HE HAS SPOKEN PUBLICLY SINCE THE PRESIDENT NOMINATED HIM AT THE
WHITE HOUSE A MONTH OR SO AGO. HE HAS BEEN THE GHOST IN
ALL OF THIS, SCRIBBLING NOTES ALL THE TIME.
>>WOULDN’T YOU LOVE TO SEE HIS NOTEBOOK?
>>LET’S GO BACK TO THE HEARING.>>THANK YOU TO JUDGE KAVANAUGH
FOR GETTING BACK AT THE EXACT TIME. BEFORE I CALL ON SENATOR KLOBUCHAR I THINK SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE RAISED AN
ISSUE THAT I DEMAND AN ANSWER AND I WANT TO SPEAK TO THOSE
POINTS. THIS ISSUE HAS NEVER COME UP FROM MY COLLEAGUES, BUT
I THOUGHT AS I SAT HERE AND LISTEN TO SOME PEOPLE CRITICIZE THE SUPREME
COURT FOR IN A SENSE BEEN BOUGHT — BEING BOUGHT, AND THEY ALWAYS
TEND TO CRITICIZE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR SOMEHOW
INTERFERING IN THE JUDICIARY, AND I HEAR ALL ABOUT THE
CRITICISM OF TRUMP. IT SEEMS ODD TO ME THAT WE DON’T HAVE
CRITICISM OF PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING THE SAME THING ABOUT THE
SUPREME COURT. SO I WANT TO READ WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT CRITICIZES THE
JUDICIARY OR JUDICIAL DECISIONS, WE HEAR WILLS OF ANGUISH FROM MY
DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES. THEY ATTACKED THE PRESIDENT FOR
THREATENING THE INDEPENDENCE AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIARY.
THEY APPLAUD THE JUDICIARY FOR STANDING UP TO THE PRESIDENT. I
JUST LISTENED TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HERE AND ONE OF THEM SPENT 18 MINUTES ATTACKING
THE PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT. HE SAID THAT FIVE
JUSTICES HAVE BEEN BOUGHT AND SOLD BY PRIVATE INTEREST AND HE
ACCUSED THEM OF DECIDING CASES TO THE BENEFIT OF FAVORED
PARTIES. SO I THINK IT IS PRETTY CLEAR, A DOUBLE STANDARD.
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO TOLERATE SUCH DOUBLE STANDARDS. AND PARTICULARLY, FROM THE PRESS
THAT IS THE POLICEMAN OF OUR WHOLE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
WITHOUT A FREE PRESS, OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD BE LESS THAN
WHAT IT IS. IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT IS SOMETHING I HOPE
SOME OF YOU WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AND PROBABLY
WON’T, BUT AT LEAST I SAID MY PIECE. ALSO, SEVERAL SENATORS
HAVE BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE 6% IN THE 99% AND
THINGS LIKE THAT THAT I THOUGHT I OUGHT TO CLEAR UP BECAUSE I
COULD SAVE MYSELF THAT WHEN I FIRST
STARTED FINDING OUT HOW MUCH PAPER JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAD ON HIS
RECORD — FOR HIS BACKGROUND, I STARTED TALKING ABOUT HUNDRED MILLION
PAGES. WHEN WE FINALLY GET 488,000, I COULD SAY, I GOT ABOUT 48% OF WHAT WE OUGHT TO
HAVE. BUT THERE IS A GOOD EXPLANATION OF WHY WE DON’T HAVE IT. I WANT TO READ. SOME OF
MY COLLEAGUES KEEP SAYING THAT WE HAVE ONLY 6% OF JUDGE
KAVANAUGH’S WHITE HOUSE RECORDS. BUT THAT 99% OF JUSTICE KAGAN’S
RECORDS WERE MADE PUBLIC BEFORE THE HEARING. THIS IS FUZZY MATH. MY COLLEAGUES CALIBRATE THEIR
PHONY 6% FIGURE ON TWO INACCURATE NUMBERS AND FIRST
THEIR FIGURE COUNTS AND THE ESTIMATED, PAGE COUNT BY
CAREER ARCHIVISTS AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND BASED UPON
THEIR HISTORICAL PRACTICE BEFORE THE ON PROCESS E-MAILS AND THE
TEXTS AND ATTACHMENTS ARE ACTUALLY REVIEWED. WHEN JUDGE
KAVANAUGH’S WHITE HOUSE E-MAILS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED THE ACTUAL
NUMBER OF PAGES ENDED UP BEING SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THE NUMBER THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
ESTIMATED BEFORE THE ACTUAL REVIEW. ONE REASON IS BECAUSE WE
ARE ABLE TO USE TECHNOLOGY TO CALL OUT THE EXACT DUPLICATE
E-MAILS INSTEAD OF HAVING TO READ 13 TIMES AN EMAIL THAT JUDGE
KAVANAUGH SENT TO 12 WHITE HOUSE COLLEAGUES. WE ONLY HAD TO
READ IT ONCE. SECOND, THE 6% FIGURE COUNTS MILLIONS AND
MILLIONS OF PAGES OF IRRELEVANT STUFF
SECRETARY DOCUMENTS THAT WE NEVER EVER REQUESTED OR NEEDED.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE RECEIVED 100% OF THE DOCUMENTS WE
REQUESTED FROM JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S TIME AS AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH
LAWYER. WHILE WE MAY HAVE RECEIVED 99% OF JUSTIN — JUSTICE KAGAN’S
WHITE HOUSE RECORDS, WE RECEIVED ZERO RECORDS FROM HER MOST
RELEVANT LEGAL SERVICE AS A SOLICITOR GENERAL, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TOP SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE. WE RECEIVED MUCH
LESS THAN 99% OF HER RECORDS AS A LAWYER. WE DIDN’T RECEIVE
60,000 E-MAILS FROM JUSTICE KAGAN, SO 99% IS AN
OVERESTIMATE. EVEN THOUGH WE NEVER RECEIVED THEM, JUSTICE KAGAN SOLICITED’S — SOLICITOR
GENERAL RECORDS WERE MORE NEEDED AT THE TIME BECAUSE SHE WAS A
BLANK SLATE AS A JUDGE, INSTEAD LIKE JUDGE
KAVANAUGH WITH HIS 12 YEARS OF JUDICIAL SERVICE AND OVER 10,000
PAGES OF JUDICIAL WRITINGS ON THE NATION’S MOST IMPORTANT
FEDERAL CIRCUIT PAGES OF JUDICIAL WRITINGS ON THE
NATION’S MOST IMPORTANT FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT PAGES OF JUDICIAL
WRITINGS ON THE NATION’S MOST IMPORTANT FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT,
JUSTICE KAGAN HAD ZERO YEARS OF JUDICIAL SERVICE AND ZERO PAGES OF JUDICIAL WRITING
BEFORE APPOINTMENT TO THE HIGHEST COURT. SENATOR KLOBUCHAR?
>>THANK YOU. BEFORE I BEGIN MY OPENING STATEMENT, I WANTED TO
RESPOND TO A FEW THINGS. ONE, NONE OF THAT TAKES AWAY FROM THE
FACT THAT 42,000 DOCUMENTS WERE DUMPED ON US LAST NIGHT, AND I
DON’T THINK ANYONE WOULD GO TO TRIAL AND ALLOW A TRIAL TO GO
FORWARD OR ALLOW A CASE TO GO FORWARD IF ONE SIDE GOT 42,000
DOCUMENTS THE NIGHT BEFORE AND THE OTHER SIDE — YOU CAN’T SIMPLY
REVIEW THEM AS POINTED OUT BY SENATOR WHITEHOUSE. YOU HAVE TO
REVIEW 7000 DOCUMENTS EVERY HOUR. THAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT.
>>LET ME RESPOND WITHOUT TAKING TIME AWAY FROM YOU. DEMOCRATS
GOT EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY WE DID TO DO THE
WORK, THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF WORK WE HAD TO DO. WE GOT IT DONE AT
11:00 LAST NIGHT.
>>THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE COULD PREPARE AND REVIEW 42,000
DOCUMENTS IN ONE EVENING. WE KNOW THAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH
COFFEE YOU DRINK. THE SECOND POINT IS IT IS TRUE THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
HAS NEVER BEEN PROVOKED BEFORE TO BLOCK THE RELEASE OF
PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS TO THE SENATE DURING THE CONFIRMATION
HEARING. SO I WILL BEGIN MY OPENING STATEMENT, BUT THOSE ARE
TWO POINTS THAT I DON’T BELIEVE ARE REFUTED.
>>WELL, I WILL REFUTED FROM THE STANDPOINT. THERE WERE 5000
DOCUMENTS, 42,000 PAGES. PROCEED.
>> THANK YOU. WELCOME, JUDGE
KAVANAUGH AND WE WELCOME YOUR FAMILY AS WELL. ON ITS
FACE, THIS MAY LOOK LIKE A NORMAL CONFIRMATION HEARING. IT
HAS ALL THE TRAPPINGS, AND ALL OF US UP HERE, ALL OF
THE CAMERAS OUT THERE. THE STATEMENTS, QUESTIONS, ALL OF IT
LOOKS NORMAL. BUT THIS IS NOT A NORMAL CONFIRMATION HEARING.
FIRST, AS WE HAVE DEBATED THIS MORNING, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO
GIVE ADVICE AND CONSENT WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT CONSENTED TO GIVE US OVER
100,000 DOCUMENTS, ALL OF WHICH DETAIL A CRITICAL PART OF THE
JUDGES CAREER, THE TIME HE’S BEEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE. AND IN ADDITION,
THE MAJORITY PARTY HAS NOT CONSENTED TO MAKE 189,000 OF THE
DOCUMENTS WE DO HAVE PUBLIC. AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, I KNOW THAT NO ONE GOES TO COURT
WITHOUT REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE AND RECORDS. I KNOW, AND I KNOW
YOU KNOW, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, THAT A GOOD JUDGE WOULD NOT DECIDE A
CASE WITH ONLY 7% OF THE KEY DOCUMENTS. A GOOD JUDGE WOULD
NOT ALLOW A CASE TO MOVE FORWARD IF ONE SIDE DROPPED 42,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THE NIGHT BEFORE
THE CASE STARTED AND THAT IS IT WHERE WE ARE TODAY. THIS IS NOT NORMAL.
IT IS IN ABDICATION OF THE ROLE OF THE SENATE AND A DISSERVICE
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IT IS OUR DUTY TO SPEAK OUT. SECONDLY,
THIS NOMINATION COMES BEFORE US AT A TIME WHEN
WE ARE WITNESSING SEISMIC SHIFTS IN OUR DEMOCRACY. FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS OF OUR
GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE RULE OF LAW, HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED AND
UNDERMINED. TODAY, OUR DEMOCRACY FACES THREATS THAT WE NEVER
WOULD HAVE BELIEVED WOULD BE OCCURRING NOT LONG AGO. OUR INTELLIGENCE
AGENCIES AGREE THAT A FOREIGN ADVERSARY ATTEMPTED TO INTERFERE
IN OUR MOST RECENT ELECTION AND IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN. IN THE
WORDS OF THE PRESIDENTS DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, THE
LIGHTS ARE BLINKING RED. THERE IS AN
EXTENSIVE ONGOING INVESTIGATION BY A SPECIAL COUNSEL. THE
PRESIDENTS PRIVATE LAWYER AND CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN HAVE BEEN
FOUND GUILTY OF MULTIPLE FEDERAL CRIMES. THE MAN APPOINTED AS
SPECIAL COUNSEL IN THIS INVESTIGATION, A MAN WHO IS
SERVED WITH DISTINCTION UNDER PRESIDENTS FROM BOTH PARTIES HAS
BEEN UNDER SIEGE. THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVANT — SERVANTS WHO
WORK IN OUR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING THE ATTY. GENERAL. AND
THE FBI , HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO REPEATED THREATS AND HAVE HAD
THEIR WORK POLITICIZED AND THEIR
MOTIVES QUESTIONED. IN FACT, JUST THIS PAST WEEKEND, FEDERAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS CALLED OUT, WAS REBUKED, BY THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR SIMPLY DOING THEIR JOBS, FOR
PROSECUTING TO WHITE-COLLAR DEFENDANTS. ONE FOR
INSIDER TRADING. ONE FOR CAMPAIGN THEFT. WHY? BECAUSE THE
DEFENDANTS WERE PERSONAL FRIENDS AND CAMPAIGN
SUPPORTERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IS A FORMER
PROSECUTOR, SOMEONE WHO HAS SEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT DO THEIR JOB,
THIS IS ABHORRENT TO ME TO KNOW. THIS IS NOT NORMAL. THE
LAST BRANCH, THIRD BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, OUR COURTS AND
INDIVIDUAL JUDGES, HAVE BEEN UNDER ASSAULT, NOT JUST BY A SOLITARY DISAPPOINTED LITIGANT,
BUT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. OUR DEMOCRACY IS
ON TRIAL. FOR THE PILLARS OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND OUR CONSTITUTION
TO WEATHER THIS STORM, OUR NATIONS HIGHEST COURT MUST SERVE AS A BALLAST IN
THESE TURBULENT TIMES. OUR VERY INSTITUTIONS AND THOSE NOMINATED TO PROTECT THOSE
INSTITUTIONS MUST BE FAIR, IMPARTIAL, AND UNWAVERING IN
THEIR COMMITMENT TO TRUTH AND JUSTICE. SO TODAY WE WILL BEGIN
A HEARING IN WHICH IT IS OUR DUTY TO CARRY ON THE AMERICAN
CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION THAT JOHN ADAMS STOOD
UP FOR MANY CENTURIES AGO. THAT IS TO BE, IN
HIS WORDS, A GOVERNMENT OF LAW AND NOT MEN. TO ME, THAT MEANS FIGURING OUT WHAT
YOUR VIEWS ARE, JUDGE, ON WHETHER A PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE
LAW. IT IS A SIMPLE CONCEPT WE LEARNED IN GRADE SCHOOL THAT NO
ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. SO I THINK IT IS A GOOD PLACE TO START. THERE WERE MANY HIGHLY
CREDENTIALED NOMINEES LIKE YOURSELF THAT COULD HAVE BEEN
SITTING BEFORE US TODAY. TO MY COLLEAGUES, WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT DURING THIS CRITICAL JUNCTURE IN
HISTORY, THE PRESIDENT HAS HAND PICKED THE NOMINEE TO THE COURT
WITH THE MOST EXPANSIVE VIEW OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER POSSIBLE. A
NOMINEE WHO HAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN THAT THE PRESIDENT, ON HIS OWN,
CAN DECLARE LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. OF COURSE, WE
ARE VERY PLEASED WHEN A JUDGE SUBMITS AN ARTICLE TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW AND EVEN MORE SO WHEN THAT ARTICLE
RECEIVES SO MUCH NATIONAL ATTENTION. BUT THE
ARTICLE YOU WROTE THAT I AM REFERRING TO, JUDGE, RAISES MANY
TROUBLING QUESTIONS. SHOULD A SITTING PRESIDENT REALLY NEVER BE SUBJECT TO AN
INVESTIGATION? SHOULD A SITTING PRESIDENT NEVER BE QUESTIONED BY
SPECIAL COUNSEL? SHOULD A PRESIDENT REALLY BE GIVEN TOTAL
AUTHORITY TO REMOVE A SPECIAL COUNSEL? IN ADDITION TO
THE ARTICLE, THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF THIS PUZZLE WHICH
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE NOMINEE BEFORE US HAS AN INCREDIBLY
BROAD VIEW OF THE PRESIDENTS EXECUTIVE POWER. JUDGE
KAVANAUGH, YOU WROTE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT A PRESIDENT CAN
DISREGARD A LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS IF HE DEEMS IT TO BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL EVEN IF A COURT HAS UPHELD IT. WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN
WHEN IT COMES TO LAWS PROTECTING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL? WHAT WOULD
THAT MEAN WHEN IT COMES TO WOMEN’S HEALTHCARE? THE DAYS OF
THE DIVINE RIGHTS OF KINGS ENDED WITH THE MAGNA CARTA IN 1215, AND CENTURIES LATER, IN
THE WAKE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, A CHECK ON THE
EXECUTIVE WAS A MAJOR FOUNDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. FOR IT WAS JAMES MADISON, WHO MAY NOT HAVE HAD A
MUSICAL NAMED AFTER HIM, BUT WAS A TOP SCHOLAR OF HIS TIME, WHO
WROTE IN FEDERALIST 47, THE ACCUMULATION OF ALL POWERS, LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE,
AND JUDICIARY, IN THE SAME HANDS, MAY JUSTLY BE PRONOUNCED THE VERY
DEFINITION OF TYRANNY. SO WHAT DOES THAT WARNING MEAN IN REAL
LIFE TERMS TODAY? HERE IS ONE EXAMPLE. IT MEANS WHETHER PEOPLE
LIKE KELLY GREGORY AND — AN AIR FORCE
VETERAN, MOTHER, AND BUSINESS OWNER, WHO IS HERE FROM
TENNESSEE, AND IS LIVING WITH STAGE IV BREAST CANCER CAN AFFORD MEDICAL
TREATMENT. AT A TIME WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION IS ARGUING THAT
PROTECTIONS TO ENSURE PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS
CAN’T BE KICKED OFF THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT CONFIRM A JUSTICE WHO BELIEVES THE
PRESIDENTS VIEWS ALONE CARRY THE DAY. ONE OPINION I PLAN TO ASK
ABOUT, WHEN JUDGES APPOINTED BY PRESIDENTS OF BOTH PARTIES JOIN IN UPHOLDING
THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, YOU, JUDGE,
DISSENTED. YOUR DISSENT CONCLUDED THAT THE
BUREAU, AND AGENCY WHICH HAS SERVED US WELL IN BRINGING BACK
OVER $12 MILLION TO CONSUMERS FOR FRAUD FROM CREDIT CARDS TO LOANS TO
MORTGAGES, WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. OR IN ANOTHER CASE, YOU WROTE A
DISSENT AGAINST THE RULES THAT PROTECT NET NEUTRALITY, RULES
THAT HELP ALL CITIZENS AND SMALL BUSINESSES HAVE AN EVEN PLAYING
FIELD WHEN IT COMES TO ACCESSING THE INTERNET. ANOTHER EXAMPLE
THAT SEEMS MIRED IN LEGALESE BUT IS CRITICAL FOR AMERICANS, ANTITRUST LAW. IN
RECENT YEARS, THE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY ON THE SUPREME COURT
HAS MADE IT HARDER AND HARDER TO ENFORCE THE NATIONS ANTITRUST
LAWS, RULING IN FAVOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND MARKET DOMINANCE. YET TO OF
JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S MAJOR ANTITRUST OPINIONS SUGGEST THAT
HE WOULD PUSH THE COURT EVEN FURTHER DOWN THE MERGER PAST. WE SHOULD HAVE MORE
COMPETITION AND NOT LESS. NOW, TO GO FOR MY SPECIFIC CONCERNS
AND END ON A HIGHER PLANE, ALL OF THE ATTACKS
ON THE RULE OF LAW IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM OVER THE PAST
YEAR HAVE MADE ME, AND I WOULD GUESS SOME OF MY OTHER
COLLEAGUES ON THIS COMMITTEE, PAUSE AND THINK MANY TIMES ABOUT
WHY I DECIDED TO COME TO THE SENATE AND GET ON THIS
COMMITTEE, AND MUCH FURTHER BACK WHY E — I EVEN DECIDED TO GO
INTO LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE. I WILL TELL YOU THAT NOT MANY
GIRLS IN MY HIGH SCHOOL CLASS DREAMED OF BEING A LAWYER. WE
HAD NO LAWYERS IN MY FAMILY, AND MY PARENTS WERE THE FIRST AND THEIR FAMILIES TO GO TO COLLEGE.
BUT SOMEHOW MY DAD CONVINCED ME TO SPEND THE MORNINGS SITTING IN
A COURTROOM WATCHING A STATE COURT DISTRICT JUDGE HANDLING
ROUTINE CRIMINAL CASES. THE JUDGE LISTENED TO ARGUMENTS AND
HANDED OUT MISDEMEANOR SENTENCES. IT WAS CERTAINLY
NOTHING GLAMOROUS LIKE TO WORK FOR THE JOB YOU HAVE
BEEN NOMINATED FOR, JUDGE. BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT JUST THE SAME.
I REALIZED THAT MORNING THAT BEHIND EVERY SINGLE CASE THERE
WAS A STORY AND THERE WAS A PERSON, NO MATTER HOW SMALL.
EACH AND EVERY DECISION THE JUDGE MADE THAT DAY AFFECTED
THAT PERSON’S LIFE. I NOTICED HOW OFTEN HE HAD TO MAKE THAT
DECISION AND HAD TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT HIS
DECISIONS WOULD MEAN FOR THAT PERSON AND HIS OR HER FAMILY.
THIS WEEK I REMEMBERED THAT DAY, AND I REMEMBER I WROTE AN ESSAY ABOUT
IT AT THE RIPE OLD AGE OF 17. I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT WHAT I
HAD SAID. IT IS SOMETHING I STILL BELIEVE TODAY. THAT IS
THAT TO BE PART OF AN IMPERFECT SYSTEM, TO HAVE A
CHANCE TO BETTER THAT SYSTEM WAS AND IS A CAUSE WORTH FIGHTING
FOR, A JOB WORTH DOING. OUR GOVERNMENT IS FAR FROM PERFECT. NOR IS OUR LEGAL
SYSTEM. BUT WE ARE AT A CROSSROADS IN OUR NATIONS
HISTORY WHERE WE MUST MAKE A CHOICE. ARE WE GOING TO
DEDICATE OURSELVES TO IMPROVING DEMOCRACY AND OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM
OR NOT? THE QUESTION WE ARE BEING ASKED TO ADDRESSED — ADDRESS IN THIS HEARING IS
WHETHER THIS JUDGE AT THIS TIME IN OUR HISTORY WILL ADMINISTER
THE LAW WITH EQUAL JUSTICE AS IT APPLIES TO ALL CITIZENS,
REGARDLESS OF IF THEY LIVE IN A POOR OR RICH NEIGHBORHOOD, OR IF
THEY LIVE IN A SMALL OR THE WHITE HOUSE. OUR COUNTRY NEEDS A
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WHO WILL BETTER OUR LEGAL SYSTEM , WHO WILL SERVE AS A CHECK AND
BALANCE ON THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, WHO WILL STAND UP
FOR THE RULE OF LAW WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF POLITICS OR
PARTISANSHIP, WHO WILL UPHOLD OUR CONSTITUTION WITHOUT FEAR OR
FAVOR’S AND WILL WORK FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THIS RATE AMERICAN
EXPERIMENT IN DEMOCRACY. THAT IS WHAT THIS HEARING IS ABOUT.
THANK YOU. >>SENATOR SASSE?
>>THANK YOU. I WANT TO TALK WITH AMY FOR A
WHILE. YOU DID MADISON, LIN MANUEL MIRANDA AND THE MAGNA
CARTA. WELL DONE.>> THANK YOU.
>>I HAVE LITTLE KIDS AND HAVE TAKEN MY GIRLS TO COURT A FEW
TIMES AS WELL MOSTLY TO JUVENILE BUT TO STARE THE SCARE THEM STRAIGHT. THERE IS WISDOM
IN MINNESOTA. CONGRATULATIONS, JUDGE, ON YOUR NOMINATION. I AM GLAD YOUR DAUGHTERS COULD
GET OUT OF THE ROOM AND I HOPE THEY GET THE FREE DAY FROM
SCHOOL, ASHLEY. LET’S DO SOME GOOD NEWS BAD NEWS. THE BAD NEWS
FIRST. JUDGE COUSINS YOUR NOMINATION IN JULY, YOU HAVE
BEEN ACCUSED OF HATING WOMEN, HATING CHILDREN, HATING CLEAN
AIR, WANTING DIRTY WATER, YOU HAVE BEEN DECLARED A QUOTE
UNQUOTE X ESSENTIAL THREAT TO OUR NATION. AN ALUMNI OF YALE
LAW SCHOOL AND FACULTY MEMBERS AT YOUR ALMA MATER PRIESTER
SELECTION AND WROTE A PUBLIC LETTER TO THE SCHOOL SAYING
PEOPLE WILL DIE IF BRETT KAVANAUGH IS CONFIRMED. THIS DRIVEL IS
PATENTLY ABSURD. I WORRY THAT WE WILL HEAR MORE OF IT OVER THE
NEXT FEW DAYS. THE GOOD NEWS IS IT IS ABSURD AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE DON’T BELIEVE ANY OF IT. THIS STUFF IS NOT ABOUT BRETT
KAVANAUGH WHEN SCREAMERS SAY THIS STUFF FOR CABLE TV NEWS. THE PEOPLE WHO
KNOW YOU BETTER, NOT THOSE TRYING TO GET ON TV, THEY TELL A
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY ABOUT WHO BRETT KAVANAUGH IS. YOU ARE
IN HIGH PRAISE FROM THE MANY LAWYERS BOTH ON THE LEFT AND
RIGHT WHO APPEARED BEFORE YOU DURING YOUR YEARS ON THE DC
CIRCUIT AND THOSE WHO HAD YOU AS A PROFESSOR AT YALE LAW AND
HARVARD LAW. PEOPLE IN LEGAL CIRCLES IN VERY ILLEGALLY —
INVARIABLY APPLIED YOUR WORK. TO QUOTE LISA BLATT ACCORD ATTORNEY
FROM THE LEFT WHO KNEW YOU FOR A DECADE, SOMETIMES A SUPERSTAR IS
JUST A SUPERSTAR AND THAT IS THE CASE WITH THIS JUDGE AND THE
SENATE SHOULD CONFIRM HIM . IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS TO MOST
PEOPLE GOING ABOUT THEIR WORK TODAY THAT THE DERANGED COMMENTS
ACTUALLY DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU. WE SHOULD FIGURE
OUT WHY DO WE TALK LIKE THIS ABOUT SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS
NOW. THERE ARE A BUNCH THAT SAY TYPICAL IN THE LAST 20 MONTHS IN
AMERICA. THE COMMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE YESTERDAY ABOUT
TRYING TO POLITICIZE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WERE WRONG
AND THEY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED AND I GUESS BRETT KAVANAUGH WOULD
CONDEMN THEM. REALLY CALLED THE REASON THESE HEARINGS
DON’T WORK IS NOT BECAUSE OF DONALD TRUMP, NOT BECAUSE OF
ANYTHING IN THE LAST 20 MONTHS, THESE HEARINGS HAVE NOT WORKED
FOR 31 YEARS IN AMERICA. PEOPLE WILL PRETEND THAT AMERICANS HAVE
NO HISTORICAL MEMORY AND SUPPOSEDLY THERE HAVE NOT BEEN
SCREAMING PROTESTERS SAYING WOMEN ARE GOING TO DIE AT
EVERY HEARING FOR DECADES. THIS IS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE ROBERT
BORK. THIS IS A 30 YEAR TRADITION AND NOTHING NEW IN THE
LAST 18 MONTHS. THE FACT THE HYSTERIA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
YOU MEANS WE SHOULD ASK WHAT THE HYSTERIA IS COMING FROM. THE HYSTERIA AROUND THE HEARINGS IS COMING FROM THE
FACT THAT WE HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF
THE SUPREME COURT IN AMERICAN LIFESTYLE. OR POLITICAL
COMMENTARY TALKS ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT LIKE THERE ARE
PEOPLE WEARING RED AND BLUE JERSEYS. THAT IS A REALLY
DANGEROUS THING. I THE WAY, IF THEY HAVE RED AND BLUE JERSEYS,
I WOULD WELCOME MY COLLEAGUES TO INTRODUCE THE LEGISLATION THAT ENDS LIFETIME TENURE FOR
THE JUDICIARY. IF THEY ARE JUST POLITICIANS, THEN THE PEOPLE
SHOULD HAVE POWER AND THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE LIFETIME
APPOINTMENTS. UNTIL YOU INTRODUCE THAT LEGISLATION, I
DON’T BELIEVE YOU REALLY WANT THE SUPREME COURT TO BE A
POLITICIZE BODY. THOUGH THAT IS THE WAY WE TALK ABOUT IT NOW. WE
CAN AND SHOULD DO BETTER. IT IS PREDICTABLE THAT EVERY
CONFIRMATION HEARING NOW WILL BE OVERBLOWN AND A POLITICIZED
CIRCUS. IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED A NEW THEORY ABOUT HOW
OUR THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD WORK AND IN PARTICULAR
HOW THE JUDICIARY SHOULD WORK. WHAT THEY SHOULD BE ABOUT IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND DO SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK CIVICS FOR OUR
KIDS. WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT HOW A BILL BECOMES A LAW AND
WHAT THE JOB OF ARTICLE 2 IS AND WHAT THE JOB OF ARTICLE 3 IS.
LET’S TRY JUST A LITTLE BIT. HOW DID WE GET HERE AND HOW DO WE
FIX IT? I WANT TO MAKE FOUR BRIEF POINTS. NUMBER ONE, IN OUR
SYSTEM, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE CENTER OF
OUR POLITICS. NUMBER TWO, IT IS NOT. WHY NOT? BECAUSE FOR THE LAST CENTURY, AND INCREASING BY
THE DECADE, MORE AND MORE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY IS
DELEGATED TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH EVERY YEAR. BOTH PARTIES DO IT.
THE LEGISLATURE IS IMPOTENT. THE LEGISLATURE IS WEAK. AND MOST
PEOPLE HERE WANT THEIR JOBS MORE THAN THEY REALLY WANT TO DO
LEGISLATIVE WORK. SO THEY HAVE PASSED MOST OF THE WORK NEXT TO THE NEXT BRANCH. THIRD, THIS TRANSFER OF
POWER PEOPLE YEARN FOR A PLACE WHERE POLITICS CAN BE DONE. WHEN
WE DON’T DO A LOT OF BIG DEBATING HERE, WE TRANSFER IT TO
THE SUPREME COURT AND THAT IS WHY THE SUPREME COURT IS
INCREASINGLY A SUBSTITUTE POLITICAL BATTLEGROUND IN
AMERICA. IT IS NOT HEALTHY, BUT IT IS WHAT HAPPENS AND SOMETHING
OUR FOUNDERS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE SENSE OF. FOURTH AND
FINALLY, WE BADLY NEED TO RESTORE THE PROPER DUTIES AND
BALANCE OF POWER OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM. POINT
ONE, THE LEGISLATIVE RANCH IS
SUPPOSED TO BE THE LOCUS OF OUR POLITICS PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD.
SINCE WE ARE IN THIS ROOM TODAY BECAUSE THIS IS A CONFIRMATION
HEARING FOR THE SUPREME COURT, WE ARE TEMPTED TO START WITH
ARTICLE 3. IT REALLY IT IS THE PART THAT SETS UP THE JUDICIARY. WE REALLY
SHOULD BE STARTING WITH ARTICLE 1 WHICH IS US, WHAT IS THE
LEGISLATURE’S JOB? THE CONSTITUTION’S DRAFTERS BEGAN
WITH THE LEGISLATURE. THESE ARE EQUAL BRANCHES. BUT ARTICLE ONE
MAN — 1 COMES FIRST FOR A REASON.
POLICYMAKING IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IN THE BODY THAT MAKES
LAWS. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE INSTITUTION DEDICATED TO
POLITICAL FIGHTS. IF WE SEE A LOT OF PROTEST IN FRONT OF THE
SUPREME COURT, THAT IS A PRETTY GOOD LITMUS TEST BAROMETER OF
THE FACT THAT OUR REPUBLIC IS NOT HEALTHY.
BECAUSE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE THINKING THEY SHOULD BE
PROTESTING IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT. THEY SHOULD BE
PROTESTING IN FRONT OF THIS BODY. THE LEGISLATURE IS
DESIGNED TO BE CONTROVERSIAL, NOISY, SOMETIMES EVEN ROWDY,
BECAUSE MAKING LAWS MEANS WE HAVE TO HASH OUT THE REALITY
THAT WE DON’T ALL AGREE. GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT POWER AND
GOVERNMENT IS NOT JUST ANOTHER WORD FOR PEOPLE — THINGS WE DO
TOGETHER. THE REASON WE HAVE LIMITED GOVERNMENT IS BECAUSE WE
BELIEVE IN FREEDOM AND SOULS AND PERSUASION AND LOVE AND THOSE
THINGS ARE NOT DONE BY POWER. BUT THE
GOVERNMENT ACTS BY POWER AND SINCE THE GOVERNMENT ACTS BY
POWER WE SHOULD BE RETICENT TO USE POWER. SO IT MEANS WHEN YOU
DIFFER ABOUT POWER YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DEBATE. THIS INSTITUTION
IS SUPPOSED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE DEBATE AND BASED ON THE
PREMISE THAT WE KNOW SINCE WE DON’T ALL AGREE WE SHOULD TRY TO
CONSTRAIN THAT POWER JUST A LITTLE BIT AND THEN WE SHOULD
FIGHT ABOUT IT AND HAVE A VOTE IN FRONT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS? THE PEOPLE GET TO DECIDE WHETHER
THEY WANT TO HIRE US OR FIRE US. THEY DON’T HAVE TO HIRE US AGAIN
IN THIS BODY IS THE POLITICAL BRANCH WERE POLICYMAKING FIGHTS
SHOULD HAPPEN. IF WE ARE THE EASIEST PEOPLE TO FIRE, IT MEANS
THE ONLY WAY THAT PEOPLE CAN MAINTAIN POWER IN OUR SYSTEM IS
IT IS ALMOST ALL THE POLITICIZED DECISIONS HAPPEN HERE. NOT AN
ARTICLE 2 OR 3. HOW DO WE GET TO A PLACE WHEN THE LEGISLATURE
DECIDES TO GIVE AWAY ITS POWER? OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST
CENTURY, BUT ESPECIALLY SINCE THE 1930S AND RAMPING UP SINCE
THE 1960S, A WHOLE LOT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS BODY HAS
BEEN KICKED TO A BUNCH OF ALPHABET SOUP YOUR ACCURACIES.
ALL THE ACRONYMS THAT PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THEIR GOVERNMENT OR
DON’T KNOW ABOUT THEIR GOVERNMENT ARE THE PLACES WHERE
MOST ACTUAL POLICYMAKING KIND OF IN A
WAY LAWMAKING IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. THIS IS NOT WHAT
SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK SAYS. THERE IS NO VERSE
THAT SAYS GIVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF POWER TO THE ALPHABET SOUP AGENCIES AND LET THEM
DECIDE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT’S DECISION SHOULD BE FOR THE
PEOPLE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DON’T HAVE ANY WAY TO FIRE THE
BEARCATS. WHAT WE MOSTLY DO AROUND THIS BODY IS NOT PASS
LAWS. WE MOSTLY DECIDE TO GIVE PERMISSION TO THE SECRETARY OR ADMINISTRATOR OF BUREAUCRACY XY OR Z TO MAKE LAW
LIKE REGULATIONS AND THAT IS MOSTLY WHAT WE DO HERE. WE GO
HOME AND PRETEND WE MAKE LAWS. NO WE DON’T. WE WRITE GIANT
PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT PEOPLE HAVE NOT READ FILLED WITH
ALL OF THESE TERMS THAT ARE UNDEFINED AND WE SAID THE
SECRETARY OF SUCH AND SUCH SHALL PROMINENTLY RULES TO DO
THE REST OF OUR JOBS. THAT IS WHY THERE ARE SO MANY FIGHTS
ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE JUDICIARY BECAUSE THIS BODY
RARELY FINISHES ITS WORK AND THE HOUSE IS EVEN WORSE. I DON’T
REALLY BELIEVE THAT. BUT I TRIED TO UNITE US IN SOME
WAY. [LAUGHTER]. I ADMIT THERE ARE RATIONAL ARGUMENTS THAT ONE
COULD MAKE FOR THIS NEW SYSTEM. THE CONGRESS CAN’T MANAGE ALL
THE NITTY-GRITTY DETAILS OF EVERYTHING ABOUT MODERN
GOVERNMENT, AND THE SYSTEM TRIES TO GIVE POWER AND CONTROL TO
EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD WHERE MOST OF US IN CONGRESS DON’T
KNOW MUCH OF ANYTHING ABOUT TECHNICAL MATTERS FOR SURE BUT
YOU COULD ALSO IMPUGN OUR WISDOM IF YOU WANT. BUT WHEN YOU’RE
TALKING ABOUT TECHNICAL AND COMPLICATED MATTERS, IT IS TRUE
THE CONGRESS WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME SORTING OUT EVERY FINAL
THING ABOUT EVERY DETAIL BUT THE REAL REASON AT THE END OF THE
DAY THAT THIS INSTITUTION PUMPS MOST OF ITS POWER TO EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES IS
BECAUSE IT IS A CONVENIENT WAY FOR LEGISLATORS TO BE ABLE TO
AVOID TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTROVERSIAL AND OFTEN UNPOPULAR DECISIONS. IF PEOPLE WANT TO GET REELECTED
OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND THAT IS YOUR HIGHEST GOAL, YOUR BIGGEST
LONG-TERM THOUGHT IS ABOUT YOUR OWN INCUMBENCY, AND GIVING AWAY
YOUR POWER IS A GOOD STRATEGY. IT IS NOT A GOOD LIFE BUT A GOOD
STRATEGY FOR INCUMBENCY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, A LOT OF THE
POWER DELEGATION THAT HAPPENS FROM THIS BRANCH IS BECAUSE THAT
CONGRESS HAS DECIDED TO SELF NEUTER. YES WHAT? THE IMPORTANT
THINK — THING IS THAT WHETHER CONGRESS HAS LAME JOBS OR NOT, IF THEY NEUTER ITSELF
AND GIVES POWER TO A FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, IT MEANS
THAT PEOPLE ARE CUT OUT OF THE PROCESS. THERE IS NOBODY IN
NEBRASKA. THERE IS NOBODY IN MINNESOTA OR DELAWARE THAT
ELECTED THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR PLANT QUARANTINE
AT THE USDA. AND YET IF HE DOES SOMETHING TO MAKE THE LIVES OF NEBRASKA PEOPLE DIFFICULT
WHICH HAPPENS TO FARMERS AND RANCHERS IN NEBRASKA, WHO DO
THEY PROTEST TO AND WHERE DO THEY GO AND HOW DO THEY NAVIGATE
THE COMPLEXITY OF ALL THE LOBBYISTS IN THIS TOWN TO DO
EXECUTIVE AGENCY LOBBYING? THEY CAN’T.
WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY DON’T HAVE ANY ABILITY TO SPEAK OUT AND
FIRE PEOPLE THROUGH AN ELECTION. SO ULTIMATELY WHEN THE CONGRESS
IS NEUTERED, WHEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE GROWS AND
THERE IS THIS FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, IT MAKES IT HARDER
AND HARDER FOR THE CONCERNS OF CITIZENS TO BE REPRESENTED AND
ARTICULATED BY PEOPLE THAT THE PEOPLE KNOW
THEY HAVE POWER OVER. ALL THE POWER RIGHT NOW OR ALMOST ALL
THE POWER RIGHT NOW HAPPENS OFFSTAGE AND THAT LEAVES A LOT
OF PEOPLE WONDERING WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR ME AND THAT
BRINGS ME TO MY THIRD POINT. THE SUPREME COURT BECOMES OUR
SUBSTITUTE POLITICAL BATTLEGROUND. IT IS ONLY NINE PEOPLE AND YOU CAN KNOW
THEM AND DEMONIZE THEM AND TRY TO MAKE THE MESSIAHS BUT
ULTIMATELY BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN’T NAVIGATE THEIR WAY THROUGH THE
BUREAUCRACY, THEY TURNED TO THE SUPREME COURT LOOKING FOR POLITICS. KNOWING OUR OFFICIALS DON’T CARE
ENOUGH TO DO THE HARD WORK OF REASONING THROUGH THE PLACES WE
DIFFER AND DECIDING TO SHROUD OUR POWER AT TIMES, IT MEANS WE
LOOK FOR NINE JUSTICES TO BE SUPER LEGISLATORS. WE LOOK FOR
NINE JUSTICES TO TRY TO RIGHT THE WRONGS FROM OTHER PLACES IN THE PROCESS. WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WANTING
TO HAVE EMPATHY FROM THEIR JUSTICES, THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE THE
JUSTICES DO SOMETHING THAT THE CONGRESS REFUSES TO DO AS IT
CONSTANTLY ADVOCATES ITS RESPONSIBILITY. THE
HYPERVENTILATING WE SEE IN THIS PROCESS AND THE WAY TODAY’S
HEARING STARTED WITH 90 MINUTES OF THEATRICS, PREPLANNED WITH
CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE OTHER SIDE HERE, IT SHOWS US A SYSTEM
THAT IS WILDLY OUT OF WHACK. THUS A FOURTH AND FINAL POINT.
THE SOLUTION HERE IS NOT TO TRY TO FIND JUDGES WHO
WILL BE POLICY MAKERS. IT IS NOT TO TRY TO TURN THE SUPREME COURT
INTO AN ELECTION BATTLE FOR TV. THE SOLUTION IS TO RESTORE A
PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER WITH THE BALANCE OF POWERS. WE NEED
SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK BACK. WE NEED A CONGRESS THAT RIGHTS LAWS AND
STANDS BEFORE THE PEOPLE AND SUFFERS THE CONSEQUENCES AND
GETS TO GO BACK TO OUR OWN IF THAT IS WHAT THEY DECIDE AND WE
NEED A BRANCH THAT HAS A HUMBLE VIEW OF ITS JOB OF ENFORCING THE
LAW, NOT TRYING TO WRITE LAWS IN THE CONGRESS’S ABSENCE AND WE
NEED A JUDICIARY THAT TRIES TO APPLY WRITTEN LAWS TO FAXON
CASES ACTUALLY BEFORE IT. THIS IS THE ELEGANT AND FAIR PROCESS
THAT THE FOUNDERS CREATED. IT IS THE PROCESS WHERE PEOPLE WHO ARE ELECTED FOR TWO YEARS AND SIX
YEARS IN THIS INSTITUTION IN FOUR YEARS IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH CAN BE FIRED. BECAUSE WITH JUSTICES AND THE JUDGES,
THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SERVE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY WEARING BLACK
ROBES, THEY ARE INSULATED FROM POLITICS. THIS IS WHY WE TALK
ABOUT AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY. THIS IS WHY THEY WEAR ROBES AND
THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD NOT TALK ABOUT REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC JUSTICES. THIS IS
WHY WE SAY JUSTICES BLIND. THIS IS WHY WE GIVE JUDGES LIFETIME
TENURE, AND THIS IS WHY THIS IS THE LAST JOB INTERVIEW BRETT KAVANAUGH WILL EVER HAVE.
HE IS GOING TO A JOB WHERE HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE SUPER
LEGISLATORS. THE QUESTION BEFORE US TODAY IS NOT WHAT DOES HE THINK OF 11 YEARS AGO ABOUT SOME
POLICY BUT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS THE TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER TO
TAKE HIS POLICY VIEWS IN HIS POLITICAL PREFERENCES AND PUT THEM IN A BOX MARKED
RELEVANT AND SET IT ASIDE EVERY MORNING WHEN HE PUTS ON THE
BLACK ROBE. THE QUESTION IS DOES HE HAVE THE CHARACTER AND
TEMPERAMENT TO DO THAT? IF YOU DON’T THINK HE DOES, VOTE NO. IF
YOU THINK HE DOES, STOP THE CHARADE. AT THE END OF THE DAY,
I THINK ALL OF US KNOW THAT BRETT KAVANAUGH UNDERSTANDS HIS
JOB IS NOT TO REWRITE LAWS AS THEY WISH THOUGH SHE WISHES THEY
WERE. HE IS NOT BEING INTERVIEWED TO BE A
SUPER LEGISLATOR. IT IS NOT TO SEEK POPULARITY. HIS JOB IS TO
BE FAIR AND DISPASSIONATE. IS NOT EXERCISE EMPATHY BUT TO
FOLLOW WRITTEN LAWS. CONTRARY TO THE ONION LIKE SMEARS WE HEAR
OUTSIDE, JUDGE KAVANAUGH DOESN’T HATE WOMEN AND CHILDREN. HE DOESN’T LUST AFTER DIRTY WATER AND
STINKY AIR. LOOKING AT HIS RECORD, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT
HE ACTUALLY DISLIKES ARE LEGISLATORS THAT ARE TOO LAZY
AND TOO RISK-AVERSE TO DO OUR ACTUAL JOBS. IT SEEMS TO ME IF
YOU READ HIS 300+ OPINIONS, WHAT THEY REVEAL TO ME IS THE
DISSATISFACTION I THINK HE WOULD ARGUE A CONSTITUTIONALLY COMPELLED DISSATISFACTION , WITH BUREAUCRATS DOING OUR JOB
AND WE FAIL TO DO IT. IN THIS VIEW, I THINK HE IS ALIGNED WITH
THE FOUNDERS. FOR OUR CONSTITUTION PLACES POWER NOT IN
THE HANDS OF THE BUREAUCRACY WHICH CAN BE FIRED BUT OUR
CONSTITUTION PLACES THE POLICYMAKING POWER IN THE 535 OF
OUR HANDS BECAUSE THE VOTERS CAN HIRE AND FIRE OUT. IF THE VOTERS
ARE GOING TO RETAIN THEIR POWER, THEY NEED A LEGISLATURE THAT IS
RESPONSIVE TO POLITICS, NOT A JUDICIARY RESPONSIVE TO
POLITICS. IT SEEMS TO ME HE IS READY TO DO HIS JOB. THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER WE ARE READY TO DO OUR JOB. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. >>THE EXAMPLE I USED TO BACK UP
WHAT SENATOR SASSE SAYS ABOUT CONGRESS NOT DOING ITS JOB AND
DELEGATING TOO MUCH IS THE OBAMA CARE
LEGISLATION THAT WAS 2700 PAGES AND THERE WAS 1693 DELEGATIONS
OF AUTHORITY TO BUREAUCRATS TO WRITE REGULATIONS BECAUSE
CONGRESS DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO REORGANIZE HEALTHCARE.
>>THANK YOU AND WELCOME, JUDGE KAVANAGH AND YOUR FAMILY AND
FRIENDS THAT ARE HERE. WE WENT TO THE SAME
LAW SCHOOL AND CLERKED IN THE SAME COURTHOUSE IN WILMINGTON
DELAWARE. I HAVE KNOWN YOU AND YOUR REPUTATION FOR NEARLY 30
YEARS. AND I KNOW WELL YOU HAVE A
REPUTATION AS A GOOD FRIEND, CLASSMATE, ROOMMATE, HUSBAND AND
FAMILY MAN. THAT YOU CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR COMMUNITY AND I WILL HEAR LATER TODAY THAT YOU
HAVE BEEN A GOOD BASKETBALL COACH. BUT FRANKLY, WE ARE NOT
HERE TO CONSIDER YOU AS THE PRESIDENT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
CIVICS ASSOCIATION OR TO REVIEW WHETHER YOU HAVE BEEN EIGHT YOUTH BASKETBALL COACH AND GOOD.
WE ARE CONSIDERING YOU FOR A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. YOU WILL HELP SHAPE THE FUTURE OF
OUR COUNTRY AND HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS FOR DECADES TO COME. TO MAKE THE DECISION TO
EXERCISE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE, WE HAVE TO LOOK CLOSELY AT
YOUR DECISIONS AND STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS TO UNDERSTAND HOW
YOU MIGHT INTERPRET OUR CONSTITUTION. THE NEXT JUSTICE
WILL PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN DEFINING A WIDE RANGE OF
CRITICAL ISSUES INCLUDING THE SCOPE OF THE PRESIDENTS POWER IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE PRESIDENT MIGHT BE ABOVE THE
LAW. THE NEXT JUSTICE WILL IMPACT THE CENTRAL RIGHTS IN TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING
OF THE CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT TO PRIVACY, CONTRACEPTION,
INTIMACY, ABORTION, MARRIAGE, THE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP AS WE
CHOOSE, THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR DEMOCRACY AS
FULL CITIZENS AND THE PROMISE OF EQUAL PROTECTION. THAT IS
BECAUSE THE CASES THAT COME BEFORE THE COURT ARE NOT JUST
ACADEMIC OR THEORETICAL. THEY INVOLVE REAL PEOPLE AND HAVE
REAL AND LASTING CONSEQUENCES. BUT THE STAKES BEING THIS HIKE I
DEEPLY REGRET THE PROCESS THAT GOT US TO THIS POINT AND THE
EXCESS AND PARTISAN GAMESMANSHIP OF THE LAST TWO YEARS AND THAT HISTORY YEARS BRIEFLY REPEATING. WHEN
JUSTICE SCALIA PASSED IN FEBRUARY 2016, I CALLED THE
WHITE HOUSE AND URGED PRESIDENT OBAMA THAN TO NOMINATE A JURIST
WHO COULD GAIN THE SUPPORT FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND HELP
BUILD A STRONG CENTER ON THE COURT AND HE DID JUST THAT WHEN
HE NOMINATED MERRICK GARLAND CHIEF JUDGE OF
THE DC CIRCUIT WHO I KNOW YOU ALSO ADMIRE. BUT MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES REFUSED TO EVEN MEET WITH THEM MUCH LESS HOLD A
HEARING OR VOTE ON HIS CONFIRMATION. DURING THE 400 DAYS WERE THE MAJORITY REFUSED TO
FILL THE VACANCY THEN, PRESIDENT TRUMP ALSO RELEASED A LIST OF
POTENTIAL NOMINEES TO THE COURT, A LIST COMPILED BY TWO HIGHLY
PARTISAN ORGANIZATIONS, FEDERAL SOCIETY AND THE HERITAGE
FOUNDATION. AND AFTER OUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED, HE PICKED
FROM THAT LIST AND NOMINATED DEAL GORE SUCH — NEIL GORE
SUCH. WHEN HE TESTIFIED HE TOLD US REPEATEDLY HOW DEEPLY
UNDERSTOOD AND RESPECTED PRESIDENT AND HE CITED A VOTE ON
PRECEDENT HE CO-AUTHORED WITH YOU. BUT IN HIS FIRST 15 1515 MONTHS HE IS
ALREADY VOTED TO OVERRULE AT LEAST FIVE IMPORTANT SUPREME
COURT PRECEDENTS AND QUESTION MANY OTHERS AND TO NAME JUST ONE
IT WAS LABOR DAY AND HE VOTED TO GUT PUBLIC SECTOR UNION UNIONS
ON WHICH THERE WERE GREAT INTEREST
IMPACTING MILLIONS OF WORKERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. MY POINT IS THAT JUSTICE GORSUCH WAS
CONFIRMED TO THE COURT AND ONE OF THE MOST PARTISAN PROCESSES
IN SENATE HISTORY. AND ONLY AFTER THE MAJORITY OF FLOYD — EMPLOYED THE NUCLEAR
OPTION TO DEPLOY THE FILIBUSTER THIS BRINGS US TO TODAY AND YOUR
NOMINATION. WHEN JUSTICE KENNEDY ANNOUNCED HIS RETIREMENT I ONCE
AGAIN CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE AND URGED THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP CONSIDER SELECTING SOMEONE FOR
THE SEAT WHO COULD WIN BROAD SUPPORT FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE. AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH, I AM CONCERNED YOU MAY NOT BE THE
NOMINEE. YOUR RECORD, PRIOR TO JOINING THE BENCH, PLACES YOU IN THE MIDST OF THE MOST PITCHED
AND PARTISAN BATTLES IN OUR LIFETIME FROM KEN STARR’S
INVESTIGATION OF PRESIDENT CLINTON TO THE 2000 RECOUNT TO THE CONTROVERSIES OF
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION INCLUDING SURVEILLANCE, TORTURE,
ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND THE CULTURAL WARS. SO IT IS
CRITICAL, JUDGE, THAT THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE FULLY EXAMINE YOUR RECORD TO UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE
YOU WOULD BE. UNFORTUNATELY, AS WE HAVE ALL DISCUSSED AT LENGTH
HERE TODAY, THAT HAS BEEN RENDERED IMPOSSIBLE. THE
MAJORITY HAS BLOCKED ACCESS TO MILLIONS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS
FROM YOUR SERVICE AND A CRITICAL ROLE IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR THE
FIRST TIME SINCE WATERGATE. THE NONPARTISAN ARCHIVES HAVE BEEN
CUT OUT OF THE PROCESS FOR REVIEWING THE
RECORDS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE WORKED TO KEEP COMMITTEE
CONFIDENTIAL NEARLY 200,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS SO THAT THE
PUBLIC CAN’T VIEW THEM AND WE CAN’T QUESTION BASED ON THEM.
AND YOUR FORMER DEPUTIES AND CHARGES DESIGNATING WHICH
DOCUMENTS THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET TO SEE. NOT
ONLY THAT, BUT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR HISTORY, THE
PRESIDENT HAS INVOKED EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO WITHHOLD MORE THAN
100,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS ON A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE FROM THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THIS LEADS TO A DIFFICULT BUT IMPORTANT
QUESTION, WHICH IS WHAT MIGHT PRESIDENT TRUMP OR THE MAJORITY
BE TRYING TO HIDE? MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO MAKE AN APPEAL TO WORK
TOGETHER TO RESTORE THE INTEGRITY OF THIS COMMITTEE. WE
ARE BETTER THAN THIS PROCESS. WE ARE BETTER THAN PROCEEDING WITH A NOMINEE
WITHOUT ENGAGING IN A FULL AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS. THIS
COMMITTEE IS FAILING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY PROCEEDING IN
THIS WAY AND I FULLY SUPPORT THE MOTIONS
MADE BY MY COLLEAGUES EARLIER IN THIS HEARING AND REGRET THAT WE
PROCEEDED WITHOUT OBSERVING THE RULES OF THIS COMMITTEE. THAT SAID, JUDGE
KAVANAUGH, I HAVE REVIEWED THE PARTS OF YOUR RECORD THAT I HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO ACCESS. WHAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE
TO SEE FROM AVAILABLE SPEECHES AND WRITINGS AND DECISIONS, I
HAVE TO SAY IT TROUBLES ME. WHILE SERVING ON THE TENSION, YOU DISSENTED ON
A HIGHER RATE THAN ANY CIRCUIT JUDGE ELEVATED TO THE SUPREME
COURT SINCE 1980 AND THAT INCLUDES JUDGE BORK. YOUR
DISSENTS REVIEWED — REVEALED THOSE THAT FALL OUT OF THE
MAINSTREAM OF LEGAL THOUGHT. YOU SUGGESTED AND THIS HAS BEEN
REFERENCED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REFUSE TO
ENFORCE THE LAWS SUCH AS THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WERE HE TO
DECIDE IF IT WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. YOU VOTED TO
STRIKE DOWN NET NEUTRALITY RULES, GUN SAFETY LAWS GOT THE
ORGANIZATION OF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU AND
MANY OF YOUR DISSENTS UNDERCUT WORKERS RIGHTS AND
ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAWS AND YOU RECENTLY PRAISED JUSTICE
REHNQUIST’S DISSENT IN ROE. YOU HAVE EMBRACED AN APPROACH TO
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS THAT WOULD UNDERMINE THE RIGHTS AND
PROTECTIONS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS FROM BASIC PROTECTIONS FOR LGBTQ
AMERICANS TO ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION TO HEALTHCARE AND
THE ABILITY FOR AMERICANS TO LOVE AND MARRY WHOM THEY WISH. I
AM CONCERNED YOUR WRITINGS DEMONSTRATE A HOSTILITY TO
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND CIVIL RIGHTS. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, I BELIEVE YOU REPEATEDLY AND
ENTHUSIASTICALLY EMBRACE THE INTERPRETATION OF PRESIDENTIAL
POWER SO EXPANSIVE THAT IT COULD RESULT IN A DANGEROUSLY
UNACCOUNTABLE PRESIDENT AT THE VERY TIME WHEN WE ARE MOST IN
NEED OF CHECKS AND BALANCES. I WANT TO PAUSE FOR A MOMENT ON
THIS LAST POINT BECAUSE THE CONTEXT OF YOUR NOMINATION
TROUBLES YOU THE MOST — ME THE MOST. IN REVIEWING YOUR RECORDS,
JUDGE, YOU QUESTIONED THE LAWFULNESS OF A HISTORIC
DECISION IN WHICH A UNANIMOUS COURT SAID THE PRESIDENT HAD TO
COMPLY WITH A GRAND JURY SUBPOENA AND YOU QUESTIONED THE
CORRECTION OF MORRISON V OLSON, A 30-YEAR-OLD PRESIDENT HOLDING
THAT CONGRESS CAN CREATE AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL WITH
AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE THE PRESIDENT AND THEY CAN’T
JUST FIRE ON A WHIM AND YOU QUESTIONED WHETHER A PRESIDENT
AND HIS AIDE SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO ANY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS WHILE IN OFFICE AND EVEN THESE POSITIONS ABOUT
PRESIDENTIAL POWER, WHICH I VIEW AS BEING AT ONE EXTREME OF THE
RECORD OF CIRCUIT JUDGES, WE HAVE TO CONFRONT AN
UNCOMFORTABLE BUT IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER PRESIDENT TRUMP MAY HAVE
SELECTED YOU, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WITH AN EYE TOWARDS PROTECTING
HIMSELF. SO, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, I WILL ASK YOU ABOUT THESE ISSUES,
AS I DID WHEN WE MET IN MY OFFICE. I EXPECT YOU TO ADDRESS
THEM. WHEN WE SPOKE, YOU AGREED THAT WE HAVE A SHARED CONCERN
ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SUPREME COURT, THAT IT IS
CRITICAL THAT OUR SYSTEM BE A RULE OF LAW AND IN MY VIEW TODAY
IT IS IN JEOPARDY. YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN A PROCESS THAT
IS FEATURED UNPRECEDENTED CONCEALMENT THAT AND PARTITION
SHIP AROUND YOUR RECORD. IN A FEW MOMENTS AGO SENATOR DURBIN
PROPOSED A BOLD STEP WHICH WOULD BE FOR YOU TO SUPPORT SUSPENDING YOUR
HEARING UNTIL ALL YOUR RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO THIS. THERE ARE ALSO MEMBERS
OF BOTH PARTIES WHO HAVE NOT STATED HOW THEY WILL VOTE ON
YOUR NOMINATION. I URGE YOU TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR
PRIOR WORK, YOUR WRITINGS, ABOUT PRECEDENT AND THE CONSTITUTION
ITSELF. TO TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TO HELP BUILD OUR
TRUST IN THE COURT IN WHICH YOU MAY WELL
SOON SIR. I HAVE BEEN TO TOO MANY HEARINGS IN WHICH JUDICIAL
NOMINEES HAVE TOLD US THEY WILL EVENHANDEDLY APPLY THE LAWS OF
THE CONSTITUTION ONLY TO WATCH THEM CAN ASCEND TO THE BENCH AND
WHITTLE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS AND OVERTURN LONG SETTLED
PRECEDENTS. THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY COMES AT A CRITICAL TIME
FOR OUR COUNTRY. WHEN OUR INSTITUTIONS OF LAW AND THE VERY
FOUNDATIONS OF OUR DEMOCRACY ARE BEING TESTED. IF WE ARE GOING TO
SAFEGUARD THE RULE OF LAW IN OUR COUNTRY, OUR COURTS AND IN
PARTICULAR OUR SUPREME COURT, MUST STAND AGAINST UNPRECEDENTED VIOLATION OF LAW BY ANYONE
INCLUDING OUR PRESIDENT. NO ONE SAID IT BETTER THAN A FORMER COLLEAGUE , SENATOR. McCAIN, WHO ONCE
ASKED ABOUT AMERICA, WHAT MAKES US EXCEPTIONAL IS THAT OUR
WEALTH FINANCIAL RESOURCES, MILITARY POWER, BIG AND
BOUNTIFUL COUNTRY NO IT IS OUR FOUNDING IDEALS AND FIDELITY TO
THEM AND OUR CONDUCT IN THE WORLD. THEY ARE THE SOURCE OF
OUR WEALTH AND POWER, THAT WE LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. THAT
ENABLES US TO FACE THREATS WITH CONFIDENCE THAT OUR VALUES MAKE A STRONGER. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WE
ARE HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU WOULD UPHOLD OR UNDERMINE
THOSE FOUNDING IDEALS AND THE RULE OF LAW. WE ARE HERE
TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU WOULD CONTINUE IN THE TRADITIONS OF
THE COURT OR TRANSFORM IT INTO A BODY MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN THE
MAJORITY OF AMERICANS. WE ARE HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOUR CONFIRMATION WOULD
COMPROMISE OR UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE COURT ITSELF.
I URGE YOU TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS AND TO CONFRONT THESE
SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES. THESE ARE HEAVY QUESTIONS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE REAL ANSWERS.
THANK YOU AND I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR TESTIMONY.
>>YOU CAN EASILY GET THE IMPRESSION, NOT JUST FROM
SENATOR BUT FROM OTHER SENATORS, THAT SOMEHOW YOU, JUDGE
KAVANAUGH, ARE OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM IN SOME WAY. SO I
LOOKED AT YOUR RECORD IN THE DC CIRCUIT. I HAVE FOUND THAT JUDGES HAVE
AGREED WITH YOU AND YOUR RULINGS IN AN OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY OF MATTERS ACROSS THE BOARD, 94% OF THE MATTERS JUDGE KAVANAUGH
HEARD. THEY WERE DECIDED UNANIMOUSLY. AND 97% OF THE
MATTERS JUDGE KAVANAUGH HEARD, HE VOTED WITH THE MAJORITY.
JUDGE KAVANAUGH ISSUED DISSENTING OPINIONS AND ONLY 2 7/10% OF THE MATTERS
THAT YOU HAVE HEARD. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CLARIFY WHAT THE
PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT REQUIRES. OUR DOCUMENT
PROCESS HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT
UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE. PRESIDENT BUSH
HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUEST HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION RECORDS AND HE
ALSO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW HIS RECORDS BEFORE THE SENATE
RECEIVES THEM AND INDEED THE ARCHIVES MAY NOT PRODUCE THEM TO THE
COMMITTEE WITHOUT GIVING PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS STATUTORY
REPRESENTATIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW FIRST. THIS IS WHAT
PRESIDENT BUSH HASN’T DONE AND THE NATIONAL
ARCHIVES DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SECOND-GUESS
PRESIDENT BUSH’S DECISION TO RELEASE RECORDS TO US. THE
NATIONAL ARCHIVES WAS NOT CUT OUT OF THE PROCESS AS PRESIDENT
BUSH’S REPRESENTATIVE INFORMED THE COMMITTEE, QUOTE WE HAVE SOUGHT,
RECEIVED, AND FOLLOWED AND THAT MEANS THE ARCHIVIST USED ON ANY
DOCUMENTS WITHHELD AS PERSONAL DOCUMENTS AND THE RESULTING PRODUCTIONS OF
DOCUMENTS TO THE COMMITTEE IS IS STILL ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS IF
THE ARCHIVIST HAD CONDUCTED ITS REVIEW FIRST AND THEN SOUGHT OUR
VIEWS IN THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION VIEWS AS REQUIRED
BY LAW.”. SENATOR FLAKE?
>>THANK YOU AND CONGRATULATIONS, JUDGE KAVANAUGH
AND CONGRATULATIONS TO YOUR FAMILY AS WELL. LET ME SAY A FEW THINGS ABOUT
THE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED HERE A LOT HERE TODAY,
THE ISSUE OF DOCUMENTS AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION. THE
STANDARD HISTORICALLY WE HAVE USED LOOKING AT NOMINEES IS WHAT
IS RELEVANT TO RELEVANT AND PROBATIVE. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE
CERTAINLY GET THAT FROM THE 12 YEARS YOU HAVE SERVED ON THE
CIRCUIT COURT. ON THE DC CIRCUIT COURT THAT CONSIDERS WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE DOCKET ITEMS THAT MORE THAN ANY CIRCUIT COURT, THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE PERHAPS
CALLED TO RULE ON. IN THE PAST, SENATORS ON THIS PANEL
HAVE ARGUED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE THAT CONFIRMING A JUDGE,
THE BEST WE COULD LOOK AT, IS HIS OR HER JUDICIAL
RECORD. YOU HAVE THAT RECORD AND IT IS A LONG ONE, OVER 300
OPINIONS. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT IS WHERE WE NEED TO START.
A LOT OF THE OTHER RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, ARE MAINLY
DUPLICATIVE AND ADMINISTERED OF DOCUMENTS AND MANY DO NOT MEET
THE STANDARDS OF RELEVANT OR PROBATIVE. THEY MAY NOT
DEMONSTRATE TYPE OF JUSTICE THAT YOU WILL BE. SENATOR SASSE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE ARE CALLED
TO DO HERE, TO LOOK AT YOUR TEMPERAMENT AND YOUR JUDGMENT
AND YOUR CHARACTER. AND I THINK YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF THAT BY THE
TYPE OF LIFE YOU HAVE LIVED OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM AND
WHEN WE MET IN MY OFFICE, I WAS IMPRESSED, OBVIOUSLY, WITH
YOUR RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND QUICK INTELLECT, BUT ALSO STRUCK
BY YOUR KINDNESS AND DECENCY. I FOUND OUT THAT WE
SHARE A DEEP LOVE OF SPORTS AND WE BOTH PLAYED FOOTBALL BACK IN THE DAY. I AM SURE YOU ARE
LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS WEEKEND, NOT JUST WHEN THESE HEARINGS ARE
CONCLUDED, BUT WHEN THE REDSKINS AND CARDINALS PLAY ON SUNDAY. I
LEARNED THAT YOU HAVE RUN THE BOSTON MARATHON TWICE AND I
WONDER IF THEY TOOK THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THEY GAVE YOU A
FAVORABLE RATING. I AM NOT SURE WHAT THAT SAYS ABOUT YOUR
SOUNDNESS OF MIND MYSELF. BUT IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, TRAINING FOR A
MARATHON AND COMPLETING TWO MARATHONS LIKE THIS IS A HUGE
ACCOMPLISHMENT. IT DEMONSTRATES NOT JUST YOUR COMPETITIVE SPIRIT
BUT A STRONG SENSE OF PURPOSE AND COMMITMENT AND SAYS
SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER. OF COURSE, NO
GREATER COMMITMENT THAN TO YOUR FAMILY, YOUR WIFE ASHLEY, YOUR
TWO DAUGHTERS. I KNOW THAT YOU BEAMED WITH PRIDE TALKING ABOUT
THEM AND AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED EARLIER, TALKING ABOUT COACHING YOUR DAUGHTERS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
BASKETBALL TEAMS. I HAVE A LETTER FOR THE RECORD WRITTEN BY
A GROUP OF PARENTS WHOSE GIRLS PLAY FOR THE TEAMS THAT JUDGE
KAVANAUGH COACHES AND I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER THAT LETTER INTO
THE RECORD. THEY NOTE THAT HE HAS BEEN A DEVOTED
COACH AND A MENTOR TO THEIR DAUGHTERS. AS THESE PARENTS
NOTE, COACH K, STRESSES THE IMPORTANCE OF
PLAYING AS A TEAM AND IS PROVIDED OUR GIRLS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN ABOUT TEAMWORK, HONESTY,
INTEGRITY, HUMILITY, RESPECT, DISCIPLINE, HARD WORK, AND
COMPETITIVENESS. AGAIN, WE ARE GOING BACK TO TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER. JUDGE KAVANAUGH
AND HIS DEDICATION AND COMMITMENT AS A VOLUNTEER
BASKETBALL COACH, I THINK DEMONSTRATES AND SAYS A GOOD
DEAL ABOUT THAT CHARACTER. CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU AND THE BLESSED SACRAMENT BULLDOGS FOR WINNING THE CITY
CHAMPIONSHIP THIS PAST YEAR. YOU MUST BE PROUD OF YOUR TEAM.
ASIDE FROM RUNNING MARATHONS AND WINNING BASKET BALL
CHAMPIONSHIPS, YOU SPENT THE LAST 12 YEARS AS A FEDERAL
APPEALS COURT JUDGE ON THE DC CIRCUIT. YOU HAVE EARNED A
REPUTATION AMONG THE LEGAL COMMENTATORS AND COLLEAGUES ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE OF A SOLID, CAREFUL JUDGE, A THOROUGH AND
CLEAR WRITER, AND SOMEONE WHO PROMOTES COLLEGIALITY ON THE
TEAM COURT WORKING WITH PEOPLE ACROSS IDEOLOGICAL LINES. I HAVE A NEW YORK TIMES
ARTICLE FOR THE RECORD WRITTEN BY PROFESSOR. AMAR, A SELF
PROFESSED LIBERAL WHO DESCRIBES HIM AS ONE WHO
APPRECIATES THE CRAFT OF JUDGING WITH SERIOUSNESS AND COMMANDS
WIDE AND DEEP RESPECT AMONG SCHOLARS, LAWYERS, AND JURORS
ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT FOR THE RECORD AS WELL.
>>OBJECTION. >>AS A MENTIONED, JUDGE
KAVANAUGH HAS AMASSED AND EXTINGUISHED AN EXTENSIVE RECORD
WRITING MORE THAN 300 OPINIONS JOINING US COLLEAGUES IN ISSUING
THOUSANDS OF ADDITIONAL CASES, AND THAT IS
WHERE WE NEED TO LOOK FIRST ONE WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW YOU WOULD JUDGE ON THE SUPREME
COURT. NOW, I KNOW, AND IT WAS BROUGHT UP TODAY, THAT A LOT OF
THE CONCERN FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE STEMS FROM THE
CONCERN OF AN ADMINISTRATION THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND
AND APPRECIATE A SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE RULE OF LAW. I
HAVE THAT CONCERN AS WELL. IF YOU JUST LOOK AT
WHAT WAS SAID JUST YESTERDAY, BY THE PRESIDENT, I THINK IT IS
VERY CONCERNING. HE SAID IN A TWEET, TO LONG-RUNNING OBAMA ERA INVESTIGATIONS OF TWO
VERY POPULAR REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN WERE BROUGHT TO A
WELL-PUBLICIZED CHARGE JUST AHEAD OF THE MIDTERMS BY THE
JEFF SESSIONS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HE
CALLS IT. TO EASY WINS NOW IN DOUBT BECAUSE THERE IS NOT
ENOUGH TIME. GOOD JOB, JEFF. THAT IS WHY A LOT OF
PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ADMINISTRATION AND WHY THEY WANT
TO ENSURE THAT OUR INSTITUTIONS HOLD, THE
THREAT THEY HAVE, GRATEFULLY. JEFF SESSIONS
HAS RESISTED PRESSURE FROM THE PRESIDENT TO PUNISH HIS ENEMIES
AND RELIEVE THE PRESSURE ON HIS FRIENDS. AND MANY OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT YOU WILL GET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE AND
FROM ME WILL BE HOW YOU VIEW THAT RELATIONSHIP. WHERE YOU
BELIEVE ARTICLE 1 POWERS AND AN ARTICLE TO POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION BEGIN. SO I
EXPECT TO HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ON
THAT SUBJECT AND AGAIN I APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO
PUT YOURSELF THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
THE HEARING MOVING AHEAD IN THE NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU, THE
CHAIRMAN. >> SENATOR BLUMENTHAL?
>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN, FOR YOUR CONDUCTING THESE HEARINGS AND FAIRLY AND
PATIENTLY AS YOU HAVE. I WILL BE REMARKING FURTHER ON WHAT
PROCEDURALLY, I THINK, IS APPROPRIATE HERE. BUT I WANT TO
BEGIN BY THANKING JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND YOUR FAMILY
FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE. I WANT TO THANK MANY MANY AMERICANS WHO
ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS HEARING, NOT ONLY IN THIS ROOM BUT ALSO ACROSS THE COUNTRY. I
WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THEIR INTEREST AND INDEED THEIR PASSION. THAT IS WHAT SUSTAINS DEMOCRACY. THAT COMMITMENT TO ORDINARY,
EVERYDAY AMERICANS PARTICIPATING AND ENGAGING IN THIS PROCESS.
THERE IS A T-SHIRT WORN BY A NUMBER OF
FOLKS WALKING AROUND THIS BUILDING THAT SAYS I AM WHAT IS
AT STAKE. THIS VOTE AND THIS PROCEEDING
COULD NOT BE MORE CONSEQUENTIAL IN LIGHT OF WHAT IS AT STAKE,
WHETHER WOMEN CAN DECIDE WHEN THEY WANT TO HAVE CHILDREN AND
BECOME PREGNANT, WHETHER THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA CAN DECIDE WHOM THEY WOULD LIKE
TO MARRY, WHETHER WE DRINK CLEAN WATER AND BREATHE CLEAN AIR,
WHETHER CONSUMERS ARE PROTECTED AGAINST DEFECTIVE PRODUCT AND FINANCIAL ABUSES, AND WHETHER WE
HAVE A REAL SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES OR ALTERNATIVELY AND IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY. I WILL NOT
CAST A VOTE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS ONE. I SUSPECT FEW OF MY COLLEAGUES
WILL AS WELL. WHAT IS AT STAKE IS INDEED THE RULE OF LAW. MY
COLLEAGUE, SENATOR FLAKE, QUOTED THE
PRESIDENTS TWEET YESTERDAY AND I WILL REPEAT IT. TO LONG-RUNNING
OBAMA ERA INVESTIGATIONS OF TWO VERY POPULAR REPUBLICAN
CONGRESSMAN WERE BROUGHT TO A WELL-PUBLICIZED CHARGE JUST
AHEAD OF THE MIDTERMS BY THE JEFF
SESSIONS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND TO EASY WINS NOW IN DOUBT
BECAUSE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME. GOOD JOB, JEFF. I HAVE HAD MY
DISAGREEMENTS WITH THIS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. I WANT TO
NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT AT LEAST ONE HIGH-RANKING MEMBER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS IN THIS ROOM AND I WANT TO URGE THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO STAND STRONG AND HOLD FAST AGAINST
THIS ONSLAUGHT WHICH THREATENED THE
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OUR DEMOCRACY. AND I WANT TO
JOIN MY COLLEAGUE, SENATOR. SASS AND HIS HOPE THAT YOU, JUDGE KAVANAUGH WOULD CONDEMN
THIS ATTACK ON THE RULE OF LAW AND OUR JUDICIARY,
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THIS DARK ERA, WHEN THE HISTORY OF THIS TIME IS WRITTEN, I BELIEVE THE HEROES WILL BE OUR INDEPENDENT
JUDICIARY AND ARE FREE PRESS. YOU ARE NOMINATED BY
THAT VERY PRESIDENT WHO HAS LAUNCHED THIS ATTACK ON OUR
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ON THE RULE OF LAW, I’M ON , LIKE THE FBI, LAW ENFORCEMENT
AT EVERY LEVEL WHOSE INTEGRITY HAS QUESTION. YOUR RESPONSES TO OUR QUESTION WILL BE HIGHLY ENLIGHTENING ABOUT
WHETHER YOU JOIN US IN DEFENDING THE JUDICIARY AND THE RULE OF LAW. THAT VERY PRESIDENT HAS
NOMINATED YOU IN THIS UNPRECEDENTED TIME UNPRECEDENTED
BECAUSE HE IS IN UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR WHO
IS NOMINATED A POTENTIAL JUSTICE WHO WILL CAST
THE SWING VOTE ON ISSUES RELATING TO HIS POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CULPABILITY.
IN FACT, WHETHER HE IS REQUIRED TO OBEY A SUBPOENA TO
APPEAR BEFORE A GRAND JURY OR REQUIRED TO TESTIFY IN A PROSECUTION OF HIS FRIEND OR
ASSOCIATE OR OTHER OFFICIALS IN HIS ADMINISTRATION OR WHETHER IN
FACT HE IS REQUIRED TO STAND TRIAL IF HE IS INDICTED WHILE HE
IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THERE IS A BASIC
PRINCIPLE OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND IT WAS ARTICULATED BY THE FOUNDERS. NO ONE CAN SELECT
THE JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE. THAT IS WHAT THE
PRESIDENT IS POTENTIALLY DOING HERE, SELECTING A JUSTICE
ON THE SUPREME COURT WHO POTENTIALLY WILL CAST A DECISIVE
VOTE IN HIS OWN CASE. THAT IS A REASON WHY
THIS PROCEEDING IS SO CONSEQUENTIAL. SENATOR SASSE
URGED US TO DO OUR JOB. I AGREE. PART OF OUR JOB IS TO
REVIEW THE RECORD OF THE NOMINEE AS THOROUGHLY AND DELIBERATELY AS POSSIBLE, LOOKING TO ALL THE
RELEVANT AND PROBATIVE EVIDENCE. WE CAN’T DO THAT ON THIS RECORD. MR. PRESIDENT, YOU
HAVE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT YOUR STAFF HAS
ALREADY REVIEWED THE 42,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED TO
THIS COMMITTEE AT 541 YOUR STAFF HAS ALREADY REVIEWED THE 42,000
PAGES OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED TO THIS COMMITTEE AT 5:41 PM YESTERDAY. BOTH SIDES
ARE USING THE SAME COMPUTER PLATFORM. TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS FROM MR. BURKE.
THE DOCUMENTS HAD TO BE LOADED INTO THIS PLATFORM OVERNIGHT AND
COULD NOT BE CONCLUDED UNTIL 6:45 AM THIS MORNING. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOUR STAFF
CONCLUDED ITS REVIEW LAST NIGHT BEFORE THE DOCUMENTS WERE EVEN UPLOADED. THAT IS THE
PLATFORM THAT BOTH SIDES ARE USING HERE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE
MR. CHAIRMAN THAT ANY SENATOR. HAS EVER SEEN THESE NEW
MATERIALS MUCH LESS ALL OF THE OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN SCREENED BY BILL BURKE, WHO IS NOT THE NATIONAL
ARCHIVISTS IN THIS SITUATION WHEN WE SAY IT IS
UNPRECEDENTED, IS TRULY WITHOUT PARALLEL IN OUR HISTORY AND I WILL QUOTE
FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVISTS, IT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. THE ARCHIVIST
CONTINUES THIS EFFORT BY FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH AND HE DOES NOT
REPRESENT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OR THE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY.”. SO, MR.
CHAIRMAN, I RENEW MY MOTION TO ADJOURN SO THAT WE HAVE TIME TO
CONCLUDE OUR REVIEW OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND SO ALSO MY REQUEST
UNDER THE FREE MOVE INFORMATION ACT, NOW PENDING TO THE NATIONAL
ARCHIVIST, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TWO OTHER RELEVANT
AGENCIES, CAN BE CONSIDERED AND JUDGED AND THAT FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT WOULD REQUIRE SOME TIME, I ASSUME, TO
CONCLUDE. I RENEW MY MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN AND ASK FOR A VOTE
ON THE MOTION TO ADJOURN. AS I SAID EARLIER, RULE FOUR PROVIDES
QUOTE THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SHALL, SHALL, NOT MAY, ENTERTAIN A
NON-DEBATABLE MOTION TO BRING A MATTER BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TO A VOTE. THAT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR
TO ME, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE MADE A MOTION TO BRING BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE A MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER THE RULES, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ENTERTAIN MY MOTION. I WOULD JUST ADD THIS
FINAL POINT. ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS WILL COME OUT. THEY
WILL COME OUT EVENTUALLY. AS SOON AS 2019 AND 2020 . BY LAW THESE DOCUMENTS BELONG
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THEY DON’T BELONG TO PRESIDENT BUSH
OR PRESIDENT TRUMP. THEY BELONG TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IT IS
ONLY A MATTER OF TIME MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, BEFORE
YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER FOR WHAT IS IN THE DOCUMENTS. WE DON’T
KNOW WHAT IS IN THEM. THE QUESTION IS WHAT ARE THEY
CONCEALING THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER. MR. CHAIRMAN, I RENEW
MY MOTION TO ADJOURN. >>YOU QUOTE THE RULES VERY
ACCURATELY, BUT THOSE RULES APPLY TO EXECUTIVE BUSINESS
SESSION. WE ARE NOT IN EXECUTIVE BUSINESS SESSION.
>>WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I ASK YOU TO POINT TO ME THE LANGUAGE IN RULE FOUR OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN
OUR RULES THAT LIMIT ITS SCOPE TO EXECUTIVE BUSINESS. THERE IS
NO SUCH LANGUAGE. >>I WOULD HAVE YOU QUOTE THE
LANGUAGE TO THE CONTRARY.
>>[INDISCERNIBLE]>>[Audio Interference] THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION IF WE WERE
IN EXECUTIVE BUSINESS SESSION, BUT WE ARE NOT IN EXECUTIVE
BUSINESS SESSION SO IT IS DENIED.
>>MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL PROCEED UNDER PROTEST. WE
HAD A LOT OF RHETORIC SO FAR ABOUT RULES AND NORMS. I AM VERY REGRETFUL
THAT THE CHAIR HAS ADOPTED THIS STAND, WHICH IN MY VIEW CONTRADICTS OUR BASIC
NORMS AND RULES. BUT I WILL PROCEED.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE FEARS ABOUT
WHAT THIS NOMINEE WILL DO WITH RESPECT TO OUR RULE OF LAW BUT OUR BASIC RIGHTS THAT
HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BYPASS SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AND THE
ONLY WAY TO TEST WHAT HIS FIDELITY IS, IN FACT, IS TO ASK,
AS I HAVE ASKED EVERY JUDICIAL NOMINEE COMING BEFORE I HAVE SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE
AND HEARINGS, WHETHER HE BELIEVES PAST DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT WERE CORRECTLY DECIDED. I WILL BE ASKING YOU,
JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE ROE V. WADE WAS
CORRECTLY DECIDED. I WILL BE ASKING YOU —
>>MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I ASK A QUESTION?
>>I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT EACH OF US HAD 10 MINUTES
FOR AN OPENING STATEMENT. WE WILL HAVE 15 MINUTES FOR QUESTIONS. THE VARIOUS MEMBERS HAVE BEEN
MAKING SPEECHES ALL DAY LONG HAVE NOT BEEN CONFINED TO THEIR
10 MINUTE OPENING STATEMENTS.>>OKAY. LIKE I TOLD YOU —
>>I THINK I HAVE TIME LEFT. >>YOU WILL HAVE TIME. I AM
GOING TO LET YOU FINISH. JUST A MINUTE. I WAS HOPING THAT THE 10
MINUTE RULE WOULD STAND. BUT WE GOT OFF TO A VERY BAD START. AND WE GOT OFF TO A BAD START
AND EVERYBODY STARTED EXCEEDING THEIR TIME LIMITS. SO I GUESS,
AS LONG AS WE HAVE TO STAY HERE AND
GET THIS ALL DONE TODAY, IF WE HAVE TO STAY INTO THE NIGHT, WE
WILL STAY. BUT I WON’T CUT ANYBODY OFF NOW THAT I DIDN’T DO
IT RIGHT AWAY. LIKE YOU SAID, MOB RULE. I ALWAYS SAID TO
MYSELF, EITHER YOU RUN THE COMMITTEE OR THE COMMITTEE RUNS
YOU. AND I LET THE COMMITTEE RUN ME THIS TIME. SO LET’S JUST PROCEED
AS WE HAVE AND LET SENATOR BLUMENTHAL TAKE WHAT TIME HE
WANTS. I TOPI — HOPE YOU WON’T GO TOO LONG.
>>I WILL BE VERY JUDICIOUS. >>THANK YOU. I DON’T KNOW WHAT
THAT MEANS.>> I AM SORRY I CAN’T AGREE WITH
YOU SENATOR. CORWIN. JUST PROCEED.
>>I WILL BE ASKING JUDGE KAVANAGH WHETHER HE BELIEVES ROE
V. WADE WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED OR BROWN VERSUS BOARD
OF EDUCATION WAS CORRECTLY AS CITED IN JUDICIAL NOMINEES
FIGURED OUT ALL KIND OF WAYS TO AVOID ANSWERING THAT QUESTION
AND FIRST THEY SAID THEY FELT IT WOULD VIOLATE THE CANONS OF
ETHICS. THERE ARE NO CANNONS OF ETHICS THAT PRECLUDE A RESPONSE
AND THEY SAID THEY FELT A DECISION MIGHT COME BEFORE THEM, AN ISSUE IN THE
CASE THAT MIGHT ARISE AND MORE RECENTLY THEY HAVE ADOPTED THE MANTRA THAT THEY THINK ALL
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ARE CORRECTLY DECIDED THAT YOU ARE
IN A DIFFERENT POSITION. YOU HAVE BEEN NOMINATED TO THE
HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND IN YOUR DECISIONS IS A
POTENTIAL SWING VOTE COULD OVERTURN EVEN WELL SETTLED PRECEDENT. THERE ARE
INDICATIONS IN YOUR WRITINGS, YOUR OPINIONS, AS WELL AS THE
ARTICLES YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND SOME OF THE MEMOS THAT HAVE COME
TO LIGHT THAT YOU BELIEVE FOR EXAMPLE ROE V. WADE COULD BE OVERTURNED. THAT IS WHY I
WANT TO KNOW FROM YOU WHETHER IT WAS CORRECTLY DECIDED IN THE
FIRST PLACE AND OTHER DECISIONS THAT ARE REGARDED AS WELL
SETTLED OR LONG ESTABLISHED. IN FACT, I HAVE THESE FEARS
BECAUSE, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, THE SYSTEM AND PROCESS HAS CHANGED
SO RADICALLY. IN FACT, YOU HAVE SPENT DECADES SHOWING US IN MANY
WAYS WHAT YOU BELIEVE. OR TO PUT IT MORE PRECISELY, YOU HAVE SPENT DECADES SHOWING THOSE
GROUPS, LIKE THE FEDERAL SOCIETY AND OTHERS WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE REALLY NOMINATED YOU BECAUSE THE
PRESIDENT OUTSOURCED THIS DECISION TO THEM. IN THOSE
OPINIONS, AND WRITINGS AND STATEMENTS AND INTERVIEWS, YOU HAVE DONE
EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO SHOW THOSE FAR RIGHT GROUPS THAT YOU
WILL BE A LAWYER SOLDIER ON THE COURT. AND I WILL USE SOME OF THOSE
WRITINGS AND SOME OF THE TIMING AND OTHER INDICATIONS TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE MORE THAN A
NOMINEE, IN FACT A CANDIDATE AND A CAMPAIGN THAT YOU HAVE
CONDUCTED AND THAT SEEMS TO BE UNFORTUNATELY THE WAY THE SYSTEM
HAS WORKED IN YOUR CASE. THE NORMS HAVE BEEN
DUMBED DOWN AND THE SYSTEM HAS THEN DEGRADED BUT I THINK WE
HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO OUR JOB AND ELICIT FROM YOU AND WHERE YOU WILL GO
AS A JUSTICE ON THE UNITED STATES IN COURT BASED ON WHAT
YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND SAID AND ALSO WHAT YOU WILL TELL THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THESE HEARINGS. I JOIN IN THE
REQUEST THAT HAS BEEN MADE OF YOU THAT YOU SHOW THE INITIATIVE
AND ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT ON THESE HEARINGS. AND I THINK THIS
HAS BEEN A DISSERVICE TO YOU AS WELL AS THE COMMITTEE AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE. IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED AFTER THIS TRUNCATED AND CONCEALED PROCESS, THERE WILL
ALWAYS BE A TAINT, AND*AFTER YOUR NAME. APPOINTED BY A PRESIDENTS NAMED AS AN UNINDICTED
CO-CONSPIRATOR AFTER THE VAST MAJORITY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING
TO THE MOST INSTRUCTIVE — DESTRUCTIVE PERIOD OF HIS LIFE
WERE CONCEALED. THE QUESTION WILL ALWAYS BE WHY. WHY WAS ALL
THAT MATERIAL CONCEALED. YOU HAVE COACHED AND YOU HAVE MEN
TOWARD JUDGES IN GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND YOU ARE AS
SOPHISTICATED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE AS ANYONE WHO WILL EVER COME
BEFORE US AS A JUDICIAL NOMINEE. SO YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN
OBLIGATION TO INQUIRE AS TO EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE RELEVANT.
IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS. IT IS THE PERCENTAGE.
THERE WERE NO E-MAILS WHEN JUSTICE GINSBURG WAS THE
NOMINEE. THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED CONTAIN
DUPLICATES AND FULL OF JUNK. WE NEED EVERYTHING THAT IS
RELEVANT, INCLUDING THE THREE YEARS THAT YOU SERVED IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE AS STAFF
SECRETARY. THE MOST INSTRUCTIVE PERIOD OF YOUR PROFESSIONAL
CAREER. SO LET ME CONCLUDE BY SAYING WHAT WE SHARE, I THINK IS A DEEP
RESPECT AND REVERENCE FOR THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I
WAS A LAW CLERK AS YOU WERE. I HAVE ARGUED CASES BEFORE THE
COURT. MOST OF MY LIFE HAS BEEN SPENT IN THE COURTROOM AS U.S.
ATTORNEY OR AS ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE POWER OF
THE SUPREME COURT DEPENDS NOT ON ARMIES OR POLICE FORCE BUT ON ITS
CREDIBILITY, THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE. I HELP — ASK YOU TO HELP US TO
UPHOLD THAT TRUST BY ASKING THIS COMMITTEE TO SUSPEND THIS
HEARING AND COME BACK WHEN WE HAVE A FULL PICTURE WITH THE
FULL SUNLIGHT THAT ARE CHAIRMAN IS SO FOUND OF ESPOUSING SO THAT
WE CAN FULLY AND FAIRLY EVALUATE YOUR NOMINATION.
>>I WOULD REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE HAVE A HALF-MILLION DOCUMENTS
ON THIS GENTLEMAN’S RECORD. ALSO, I
WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE FACT THAT YOU CAN’T GO 42,000 PAGES WHICH I GUESS IS
WAY OVER THE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED IN THE
MAJORITY AND MINORITY RECEIVED DOCUMENTS IN TWO WAYS AND ONE IS
A FORMAT THAT CAN BE UPLOADED TO REVIEWING PLATFORMS, AND THE
SECOND IS IN A STANDARD DOCUMENT FILE FORMAT CALLED A PDF, GIVEN
THE IMPORTANCE OF REVIEWING DOCUMENTS IN A TIMELY MANNER AND
MY STAFF REVIEWED THE PDF VERSION AND THE PRODUCTION
WAS RELATIVELY SMALL AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NEED TO UP LOAD — UPLOAD THEM IN A REVIEWING SENSE. SENATOR
KENNEDY, YOU ARE NEXT.
>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAVE
LISTENED TODAY AND I AGREE SO MUCH WITH WHAT SENATOR SASSE SAID. I LISTENED TODAY, AND IT IS NO
WONDER TO ME THAT SO MANY AMERICANS THINK THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A POLITICAL
BODY LIKE THE UNITED STATES SENATE. LET ME TRY TO EXPLAIN
WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR IN A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. I WANT A
JUDGE. I DON’T WANT A POLITICIAN. NOW, I AM NOT NAÏVE. IT IS TRUE. SENATOR
BOOKER AND I ARE NEW TO THE SENATE. WE DID NOT COME HERE
WHEN MOSES WALKED THE EARTH. BUT WE ARE NOT NEW TO POLITICS. AND I UNDERSTAND
THAT HUMAN RELATIONS ARE ABOUT POLITICS. I DO GET THAT.
BUT I DON’T THINK OUR FOUNDERS EVER INTENDED FOR THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT TO BECOME A POLITICAL BODY. I DON’T. I AM
NOT LOOKING FOR AN IDEOLOGY. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A HATER. WHAT
I AM LOOKING FOR IS SOMEBODY WHO IS WITH SMART, WHO’S INTELLECTUALLY CURIOUS, WHO
WRITES CRINGELY — CLEANLY AND CRISPLY, WHO
KNOWS WHAT A SEMICOLON IS FOR AND WHO IS WILLING TO
PROTECT THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF
RIGHTS AND UNDERSTANDS THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS NOT AN À LA
CARTE MENU. EVERY ONE OF THEM COUNTS. LET ME TRY TO EXPLAIN FURTHER ON WHY I
AGREE WITH WHAT SENATOR SASSE SAID. THIS IS NOT A NEWS
FLASH. OUR COUNTRY IS DIVIDING. WE HAVE BEEN DIVIDED BEFORE AND
WE WILL BE DIVIDED AGAIN. BUT I CONFESS THE DIVISION IN OUR
COUNTRY TODAY SEEMS TO ME TO BE ESPECIALLY SHARP AND WHAT
CONCERNS ME ON THAT IS THE BASIS OF THAT. IT IS NOT HONEST DISAGREEMENT AND THERE
HAVE BEEN THOUSANDS AND MILLIONS OF PAGES WRITTEN AND WE ALL HAVE OPINIONS . HERE IS MINE. I THINK THE BIG
PART OF ANGER IN AMERICA TODAY IS WE HAVE TOO MANY AMERICANS
WHO ARE NOT SHARING IN THE GREAT WEALTH OF THIS COUNTRY. NOT
ECONOMICALLY, NOT SOCIALLY, NOT CULTURALLY, NOT SPIRITUALLY.
THOSE AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT THE AMERICAN DREAM HAS BECOME THE
AMERICAN GAME AND THAT THAT NAME IS FIT . LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF
WHY I SAY THAT. I DON’T HEAR IT SO MUCH TODAY. I AM BIASED BUT I
HAPPEN TO THINK OF THE TAX CUTS AND JOBS BILL ACT WORKED. BUT
WHEN I RAN A FEW YEARS AGO, I WOULD
HEAR EVERY SINGLE DAY, PEOPLE WOULD STOP ME AND SAY, KENNEDY,
YOU KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS ECONOMICALLY? THEY SAY I
LOOK AROUND AND SEE TOO MANY UNDESERVING PEOPLE, AND I EMPHASIZE UNDESERVING. THEY SAY
I LOOK AROUND AND I SEE TOO MANY UNDESERVING PEOPLE AT THE TOP
GETTING BAILOUTS. AND I SEE TOO MANY UNDESERVING PEOPLE AT THE
BOTTOM GETTING HANDOUTS. AND I AM HERE TO STAY WORKING SHAMOKIN THE MIDDLE — PERSON IN THE
MIDDLE AND I CAN’T AFFORD IT ANYMORE. MY HEALTH INSURANCE HAS
GONE UP IN MY KIDS TUITION HAS GONE UP IN MY TAXES HAVE GONE UP
BUT I TELL YOU WHAT HAS NOT GONE UP, MY INCOME. NOW I LIKE TO THINK
WE ARE DOING BETTER IN THAT REGARD BUT WE DO STILL HAVE A
LONG WAY TO GO. BUT HERE IS THE POINT. WHO IS SUPPOSED TO FIX
THAT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? IT IS US. IT IS THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS. IT IS NOT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT THAT IS
SUPPOSED TO FIX THIS COUNTRY. CULTURALLY,
ECONOMICALLY, SOCIALLY, SPIRITUALLY, AND THAT IS WHY I
SAY I AGREE WITH SO MUCH OF WHAT SENATOR SASSE. IT
HAS ALMOST BECOME CLICHE, BUT THE ROLE OF A JUDGE IS, OR
SHOULD BE, TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS, NOT WHAT THE LAW OUGHT TO
BE. IT HAS BECOME CLICHE BUT CLICHÉS BECOME
CLICHÉS BECAUSE THEY ARE TRUE. JUDGES ARE NOT PUT THERE TO TRY TO BYPASS THE BALLOT. COURTS
SHOULD NOT TRY TO FIX PROBLEMS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS, EVEN IF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS
DOESN’T HAVE THE COURAGE TO ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS. OUR COURTS WERE NOT MEANT TO
DECIDE THESE ISSUES. I AM NOT NAÏVE. I KNOW THAT JUDGES ARE
NOT ROBOTS. WE CAN’T REPLACE YOU AND SHOULDN’T TRY TO REPLACE YOU
WITH A SOFTWARE PROGRAM BASED ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. YOU
HAVE DISCRETION. WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT IF WE EVER GET TO THE
QUESTIONING PART OF THIS EXERCISE. BUT I WILL SAY IT AGAIN. I
UNDERSTAND WHY, LISTENING TODAY, THAT SO MANY AMERICANS BELIEVE
THAT THE LAW, WHICH I THINK ALL OF US REVERE, HAS BECOME
POLITICS JUST PURSUED IN ANOTHER WAY. IT IS NOT THE WAY
IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE, JUDGE. THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM LOOKING
FOR. I AM GOING TO END AND I HAVE PLENTY OF TIME LEFT. I
THINK I HAVE TWO HOURS ALLOTTED, MR. CHAIRMAN? [LAUGHTER] SOMEBODY
TALKED ABOUT THAT THEY HAD SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE, AND I
COMMENTED TO MY FRIEND THAT THIS THING IS AS LONG AS A MOVIE.
THESE ARE THE WORDS OF JUSTICE CURTIS. IN 1857, WHEN HE DISSENTED IN
THE DRED SCOTT CASE, WHEN A STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION ACCORDING TO THE FIXED RULES WHICH GOVERN THE
INTERPRETATION OF LAWS IS ABANDONED, AND THE
THEORETICAL OPINIONS OF INDIVIDUALS ARE ALLOWED TO
CONTROL ITS MEANING, WE HAVE NO LONGER A CONSTITUTION. WE ARE UNDER THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIVIDUAL MEN WHO, FOR THE TIME
BEING, HAVE POWER TO DECLARE WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS.
ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN VIEWS OF WHAT IT OUGHT TO MEAN. THAT IS
NOT THE RULE OF LAW. JUSTICE SCALIA PUT IT ANOTHER WAY. AND I TRULY — HE SAID THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE LOVE DEMOCRACY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT FOOLS.
THE PEOPLE KNOW THEIR VALUE JUDGMENTS AND THEY ARE
QUITE AS GOOD AS THOSE TAUGHT IN ANY LAW SCHOOL. MAYBE BETTER.
VALUE JUDGMENTS, AFTER ALL, SHOULD BE VOTED ON, NOT DICTATED. THAT IS WHAT I AM
LOOKING FOR, JUDGE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND YOUR FAMILY, WELCOME. EARLIER ON
TODAY, I POINTED TO AN OPINION EDITORIAL WRITTEN BY TWO FORMER
WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARIES ENTITLED STAFF SECRETARIES
AREN’T TRAFFIC COPS, STOP TREATING KAVANAGH LIKE HE WAS
ONE. I NOTED WHAT THEY SAID AND WHAT
THEY WROTE AND I WILL QUOTE PART OF IT. THEY SAID THAT WHEN WE, THEY, HANDLED
THE JOB FOR BILL CLINTON IN MUCH THE SAME WAY THAT STAFF
SECRETARIES DID FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE HW BUSH WE WROTE CONCISE COVERED MEMOS FOR
EVERY DECISION MEMO THAT WENT TO THE PRESIDENT. WE SUMMARIZED THE
UNDERLYING MEMO, IDENTIFIED THE CORE DECISION POINTS AND OPTIONS
AND CONVEYED THE VIEWS OF THE SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS FROM WHO WE
HAVE SOUGHT COMMENT. WE WROTE HUNDREDS OF THESE MEMOS. IT IS A
WONDER THAT JUDGE KAVANAGH HAS DEEMED HIS TIME AS WHITE HOUSE
STAFF SECRETARIES SO IMPORTANT — SECRETARIES SO
IMPORTANT TO HIS POSITION AS JUDGE. THAT WE DON’T HAVE ANY OF
THESE DOCUMENTS DURING HIS TIME AS STAFF SECRETARY. [INDISCERNIBLE]
MICHAEL BILSON, [INDISCERNIBLE] JACKSON, COLLEEN CATELLI, JOHN
BATES, DEREK WATSON, THESE ARE THE
NAMES OF SOME OF THE FEDERAL JUDGES ACROSS THIS COUNTRY WHO
HAVE INDICATED BY FAITH AND RULE OF LAW OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, THESE ARE THE WOMEN AND
MEN APPOINTED BY REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS WHO
ORDERED THE GOVERNMENT TO REUNITE PARENTS WITH THEIR CHILDREN RIPPED FROM THEIR
ARMS AT THE BORDER. WHO REJECTED ATTEMPTS TO DENY FEDERAL FUNDS
TO CITIES REFUSING TO BE DRAWN INTO THE WAR AGAINST IMMIGRANTS.
WHO STOPPED EXECUTIVE ORDERS AIMED AT KNEE CAPPING PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS,. THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN UGLY BAN ON TRANSGENDER AMERICANS SERVING IN
OUR MILITARY, WHO RULED THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS CAN’T BLOCK
CITIZENS FROM THEIR TWITTER FEEDS AND WHO STOPPED THE
GOVERNMENT FROM BANNING MUSLIMS FROM ENTERING
THE UNITED STATES. THESE JUDGES STOOD FIRM IN DEFENSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, THE AMERICAN VALUES THAT EXPRESS BY IT AND
THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES IT ENSHRINES. AT THIS MOMENT OF
PERIL FOR OUR DEMOCRACY, IT IS THESE JUDGES AND OTHERS LIKE
THEM WHO HAVE PUSHED BACK AGAINST THE EFFORTS OF THE
PRESIDENT EAGER TO WIELD UNLIMITED AND UNCHECKED POWER . IN NORMAL TIMES, WE WOULD BE
HERE TODAY TO DETERMINE THE FITNESS OF A NOMINEE TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHOSEN FOR HIS OR HER
LEGAL TALENT AND REPUTATION FOR FAIRNESS. THESE ARE NOT NORMAL
TIMES. INSTEAD, WE ARE HERE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO
RUBBERSTAMP DONALD TRUMP’S CHOICE OF A PRESELECTED POLITICAL IDEOLOGUE
NOMINATED PRECISELY BECAUSE HE BELIEVES A SITTING PRESIDENT
SHOULD BE SHIELDED FROM CIVIL LOSSES, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
AND PROSECUTION, NO MATTER WHAT. LET’S NOT FORGET THAT DURING HIS
CAMPAIGN, DONALD TRUMP NEEDED TO SHORE UP HIS SUPPORT FROM THE
REPUBLICAN BASE AND THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE WAS CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO
SUFFICIENTLY CONSERVATIVE. SO FOR HELP HE TURNED TO THE
FEDERALIST SOCIETY AND HERITAGE FOUNDATION TO BUILD A
PREAPPROVED LIST OF NAMES AND PROMISED TO PICK FROM AMONG THEM
BY SELECTING NOMINEES FOR THE SUPREME COURT. THESE GROUPS ARE
LONG-STANDING RIGHT-WING ORGANIZATIONS THAT
ADVOCATE FOR CONSERVATIVE CAUSES AND LEGAL POSITIONS. THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION FOCUSES ON DEVELOPING POLICY TO, AMONG
OTHER THINGS CLIMATE CHANGE, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND REDUCE
REGULATIONS AND THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY FOCUSES ON
CHANGING THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM TO ALIGN WITH AN
ULTRACONSERVATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDING
THE OVERTURNING OF ROE V. WADE AND WHEN GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITY TO NOMINATE A NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, DONALD
TRUMP DID EXACTLY AS HE PROMISED AND DID NOT SELECT SOMEONE WHO
DEMONSTRATED INDEPENDENCE AND FIDELITY FOR THE RULE OF LAW. INSTEAD, HE SELECTED A
PREAPPROVED NAME IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE A FIFTH VOTE FOR HIS DANGEROUS ANTIWORKER,
ANTICONSUMER, ANTI-WOMAN, PRO-CORPORATE, AND
ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA. AND DONALD TRUMP SELECTED BRETT
KAVANAUGH FROM THIS LIST FOR AN EVEN MORE SPECIFIC REASON, THE
PRESIDENT IS TRYING AS HARD AS HE CAN TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM
THE INDEPENDENT, IMPARTIAL, INVESTIGATION OF HIS ABUSE OF
POWER BEFORE THE LAW CLOSES IN ON HIM ENTIRELY. BECAUSE IF THERE IS ONE THING WE KNOW
ABOUT DONALD TRUMP, IT IS THAT HE IS COMMITTED TO
SELF-PRESERVATION EVERY MINUTE, HOUR, EVERY DAY. JUDGE
KAVANAUGH’S APPOINTMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN A BROADER
CONTEXT. THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ATTACKING OUR COURTS WITH
IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN JUDGES WHO COME TO THE BENCH WITH FIRM AGENDAS WHO THEN GO ON TO RULE
IN WAYS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE AGENDAS. FOR EXAMPLE, TRUMP NOMINEE NOW A JUDGE ON THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS WRITTEN IN FAVOR OF UNLIMITED CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS AND IN ANOTHER CASE PUBLICLY AIRED HIS PERSONAL
VIEWS AND OPPOSITION TO ABORTION. TRUMP NOMINEE NOW A JUDGE ON THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT HAS ALREADY VOTED TO CURTAIL THE INDEPENDENCE OF A
FEDERAL AGENCY THAT HELPED RESCUE THE ECONOMY AFTER THE
MORTGAGE CRISIS OF 2008. TRUMP NOMINEE NOW A JUDGE ON THE THIRD CIRCUIT WROTE A DISSENT TO
EXPLAIN THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE TITLE IX REQUIRES SCHOOL
DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE TRANSGENDER STUDENTS APPROPRIATE CHANGING
FACILITIES AND BATHROOMS. TRUMP NOMINEE AMY BARRETT NOW A JUDGE
ON THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT RULE TO KEEP OUT
OF COURT EMPLOYEES TRYING TO CHALLENGE AN ARBITRATION
PROCEEDING AND CAST A DECIDING VOTE TO ALLOW BUSINESS TO
CONTINUE TO SEGREGATE ITS WORKFORCE. AND TRUMP NOMINEE JOHN K BUSCH, NOW
A JUDGE ON THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE TO KEEP A WOMAN ACCUSING
HER EMPLOYER OF AGE DISCRIMINATION DESPITE A
DISSENTING JUDGES VIEW HER WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO GO FORWARD. WHEN THESE TRUMP
NOMINATED JUDGES CAME BEFORE THIS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AS NOMINEES, MY DEMOCRATIC
COLLEAGUES AND I TRIED TO FIND OUT HOW THEY WOULD GO ABOUT
DECIDING TOUGH CASES, WHAT THEY WOULD BASE THEIR DECISIONS ON
WHEN THE LAW DID NOT GIVE ENOUGH DIRECTION AS IS
OFTEN THE CASE. TIME AND AGAIN, WE WERE TOLD, DON’T WORRY ABOUT
MY PERSONAL BACKGROUND OR MY HISTORY AS A PARTISAN LYRICAL ADVOCATE. DON’T WORRY
ABOUT WHAT I HAVE DONE OR WRITTEN OR SAID UNTIL NOW. WHEN
I GET ON THE BENCH, I WILL FOLLOW THE LAW. CLEARLY, THEY
HAVE NOT. WHY SHOULD WE EXPECT THE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, YOU,
TO BE ANY DIFFERENT. PRESIDENT TRUMP SELECTED BRETT KAVANAUGH BECAUSE OF HIS
FELT HE TO THE PARTISAN POLITICAL MOVEMENT HE HAS BEEN A
PART OF HIS ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL LIFE FROM HIS CLERKSHIP WITH
JUDGE ALEX KACZYNSKI TO HIS APPRENTICESHIP WITH CAN START
WITH WORK ON GEORGE W. BUSH’S LEGAL TEAM DURING THE FLORIDA RECOUNT AND IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN KNEE-DEEP IN PALACE AND PARTED
TICS — PARTISAN POLITICS. THE FIRST DC
CIRCUIT NOMINATION WAS A TOUGH FIGHT AND THEY FOUGHT FOR MORE
THAN THREE YEARS TO GET HIM CONFIRMED. AND FOR THE PAST 12
YEARS AS A JUDGE, HE HAS RULED, WHETHER IN DISSENT OR MAJORITY
IN WAYS IN LINE WITH THEIR POLITICAL AND
IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA. NOW, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS ELECTED
JUDGE KAVANAGH TO DECIDE CASES THAT WOULD CHANGE
SOME OF THE MOST BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AMERICANS HAVE ABOUT
THEIR LIVES AND THEIR GOVERNMENT. THERE ARE MORE
THAN 730 FEDERAL JUDGES WORKING ON THOUSANDS OF CASES ACROSS THE
COUNTRY EVERY DAY. AND MOST OF THESE CASES AND IN TRIAL COURTS.
SOME OF THEM ARE APPEALED AND HEARD AN APPELLATE COURTS. THE
CLOSELY DIVIDED SUPREME COURT HEARS VERY FEW CASES. MANY TIMES
FEWER THAN 100 EVERY YEAR. BEFORE JUSTICE
KENNEDY RETIRED, SO MANY IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WERE HANGING IN THE BALANCE, DECIDED ON NARROW GROUNDS BY 5-4 VOTE. AND
NOW THAT JUSTICE KENNEDY HAS LEFT THE COURT, THE FORCES OPPOSED TO WOMEN’S
RIGHTS, LGBTQ RIGHTS, VOTING RIGHTS, CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
KINDS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS, ARE EAGER TO SECURE
A SOLID MAJORITY ON THE COURT TO SUPPORT THEIR RIGHT RING — RIGHT-WING VIEWS.
THESE FORCES HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR DECADES TO PREPARE FOR THIS
MOMENT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT A SINGLE VOTE, A SINGLE VOTE FOR
ONE JUSTICE IS ALL IT WOULD TAKE TO RADICALLY CHANGE THE
DIRECTION OF THIS COUNTRY. IT COULD TAKE JUST ONE VOTE ON THE
SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE AND DENY WOMEN
CONTROL OVER THEIR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS. IT COULD TAKE JUST ONE
VOTE TO DECLARE THE ACAS PRE-EXISTING CONDITION
PROTECTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT COULD TAKE JUST ONE VOTE TO
DISMANTLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS THAT KEEP OUR AIR
SAFE TO BREATHE AND OUR WATER CLEANED A DRINK. IT COULD TAKE
JUST ONE VOTE TO DISMANTLE COMMON SENSE GUN SAFETY LAWS
THAT KEEP OUR COMMUNITIES SAFE, AND IT COULD TAKE JUST ONE TO
FURTHER CONNECTIONS FOR WORKING PEOPLE AND UNIONS. SINCE THIS NOMINATION WAS
ANNOUNCED, I HAVE BEEN ASKED MANY TIMES WHY DEMOCRATS WOULD
EVEN BOTHER TO GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS WHEN WE KNOW THAT OUR
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL DO ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THIS
ADMINISTRATION’S JUDICIAL NOMINEE. THERE ARE BATTLES WORTH
FIGHTING REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME. A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOMEONE WHO
PROVIDES A FIFTH VOTE ON ISSUES IMPACTING THE LIVES OF EVERY WORKING AMERICAN IS A BATTLE
WORTH FIGHTING FOR. I INTEND TO USE THIS HEARING TO DEMONSTRATE
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PRECISELY WHY WHO SITS ON
THE SUPREME COURT MATTERS AND WHY A FIFTH IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN
CONSERVATIVE AND POLITICAL VOTE ON THE COURT IS DANGEROUS FOR
OUR COUNTRY. WHY THE SENATE SHOULD REJECT THIS PRESIDENTS
LATEST ATTEMPT TO RIG THE SYSTEMS IN HIS FAVOR. AS SENATORS BEGIN TO
ASK QUESTIONS IN THE FEW DAYS COMING UP, I ASKED THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE TO LISTEN CAREFULLY TO WHAT THE NOMINEE
SAYS AND COMPARE IT TO WHAT WE HEARD ONLY A SHORT TIME AGO FROM
NEIL GORSUCH AT HIS HEARING. JUST 18 MONTHS AGO, HE TOLD US, ALL PRECEDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DESERVES THE RESPECT THE
PRECEDENT WHICH IS THE ANCHOR OF THE LAW. AS HE SAID, IT IS NOT WHETHER I
AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH ANY PARTICULAR PRECEDENT. THAT WOULD
BE AN ACT OF HUBRIS BECAUSE A PRECEDENT, ONCE IT IS DECIDED,
CARRIES FAR MORE WEIGHT THAN WHAT I PERSONALLY THINK. HE MADE THESE COMMENTS WHEN HE WAS
ASKING FOR OUR VOTE COVER EARLIER THIS YEAR, HE JOINED A
MAJORITY OF THE COURT COURT TO OVERTURN PRECEDENT AND A
41-YEAR-OLD CASE THAT PROTECTED PERMIT WORKERS AND THEIR ABILITY
TO FORM A UNION AND A 5-4 DECISION. I EXPECT JUDGE KAVANAUGH TO MAKE
SIMILAR PROMISES IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS ONLY TO DO THE EXACT
OPPOSITE OF CONFIRMED. OUR JOB HERE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE EVERY
AMERICAN SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT AND
COUNTRY WOULD LOOK LIKE IF JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS
CONFIRMED. WE OWE IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ALL OF THE
INDEPENDENT-MINDED JUDGES I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF MY
REMARKS TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR CONSTITUTION
AND THE FAIRNESS AND ORDER OF A SYSTEM THAT HAS SERVED US WELL
FOR SO LONG. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WHAT MAY BE GOING THROUGH YOUR
MIND RIGHT NOW IS TO SIMPLY AND STOICALLY INDOOR THIS HEARING.
BUT DON’T YOU THINK YOU OWE IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO DISCLOSE
ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS BEING REQUESTED BECAUSE YOU HAVE
NOTHING TO HIDE. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. I AGREE
WITH MY COLLEAGUE, SENATOR. DURBIN THAT IF YOU STAND BEHIND
YOUR FULL RECORD IN PUBLIC LIFE, FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS WOULD
DICTATE THAT YOU JOIN US IN OUR CALL FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO
SUSPEND UNTIL WE RECEIVE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND HAVE A
CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM. YOUR FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD REFLECT A
FUNDAMENTAL MISTRUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD THE
OP-ED PIECE I REFERRED TO.
>>WITHOUT OBJECTION, IT WILL BE ENTERED. GO TO SENATOR CRAPO.
>>THANK YOU AND 10-Q FOR TAKING THIS
ADDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT AND THANK YOU TO YOUR FAMILY. WE WELCOME
THEM AS WELL. THE PROCESS WE ARE
ABOUT TO EMBARK ON IS ONE OF IF NOT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
DUTIES ENTRUSTED TO THE SENATE. THE ADVICE AND CONSENT ON
JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS. ULTIMATELY, A FAIR AND PROPER
JUDGE, SUPREME COURT OR OTHERWISE, MUST FOLLOW THE LAW
AND NOT MAKE LAWS FROM THE BENCH. UPON RECEIVING HIS
NOMINATION TO SERVE AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME
COURT, JUDGE KAVANAUGH STATED, JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD. A JUDGE MUST INTERPRET STATUTE AS WRITTEN AND
A JUDGE MUST INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN,
INFORMED BY HISTORY AND TRADITION AND
PRECEDENT. ISN’T THAT THE IDEAL OF A JUDGE STEADFASTLY COMMITTED
TO THE LAW? NO ONE SERIOUSLY
QUESTIONS HIS QUALIFICATIONS TO SERVE AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE IN
OUR NATION’S HIGHEST COURT. AND HE IS EXPERIENCED AND RESPECTED
FOR HIS INTELLECT, HONESTY, AND LEGAL ACUMEN. AND HE IS A JUDGE
WITH A CLEAR RECORD BY DEMONSTRATING HE
APPLIES THE LAW AS WRITTEN AND ENFORCES THE INCOME — THE CONSTITUTION. OR TEMPERAMENT, BUT RATHER AS
TODAY’S DISCUSSION HAS SHOWN THE NOTION THAT ARE DISTINGUISHED
GERMAN HAS NOT BEEN RIGOROUS WORKFARE OR TRANSPARENT IN
NAVIGATING THE REQUISITE DOCUMENT BY THIS COMMITTEE.
THOSE CLAIMS ARE HOLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION. THERE HAVE BEEN 57
DAYS SINCE THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS NOMINATION AND TODAY’S
CONFIRMATION HEARING. THIS IS A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME THAN
SENATORS HAD FOR OTHERS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED PAGES WITH HIS
COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE. THE MOST EXTENSIVE QUESTIONNAIRE
EVER RETURNED BY A NOMINEE TO THE SUPREME COURT. THE COMMITTEE ALSO RECEIVED MORE
THAN 440,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE IN THE
EXECUTIVE RANCH. THIS IS MORE THAN ANY SUPREME COURT NOMINEE
TO DATE. IT IS MORE THAN THE LAST FIVE
NOMINEES I APPLAUD CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY IN
REVIEWING THESE DOCUMENTS AND MAKING THESE PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND FRANKLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
BELIEVE THEY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS, YOUR CURRENT THERE IS
A TO A FAIR ROSS S I WANT TO MAKE ONE SIDE NOTE IT WAS SAID
HERE TODAY THAT THE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY NOW JUSTICE KAGAN WHO IS ALSO A
NOMINEE WHO SERVED IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT 99% OF THE DOCUMENTS
REQUESTED FOR HER WERE PROVIDED. ONE PROBLEM WITH THAT FACT, THAT
IS THAT WHEN THERE WERE PROBABLY MORE PAGES
RELEVANT TO HER SERVICE. WE DON’T KNOW THE NUMBER BECAUSE
THE REPUBLICANS AGREED AFTER A STRONG DISAGREEMENT WITH THE
DEMOCRATS THAT WE WOULDN’T REQUEST THOSE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE
THE WHITE HOUSE CLAIMED THEY WERE SENSITIVE. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE NOT MADE THAT
AGREEMENT WITH THE REPUBLICANS THIS TIME. IT IS IMPORTANT TO
NOTE THAT THIS ARGUMENT THAT IS GOING ON TODAY ABOUT THE BALANCE
OF DOCUMENT PRODUCTION IS SIMPLY A TRUMPED UP ARGUMENT. THESE FACTS ASIDE MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES CONTINUE TO CRITICIZE THIS PROCESS. THEIR MOTIVES ARE
CLEAR , USE ANY MEANS AVAILABLE TO
ATTEMPT TO DELAY THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS OF A
WELL-QUALIFIED TOURIST FIT FOR THE JOB. INDEFINITELY. I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THE
COMMENTS OF MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES TODAY, SENATOR CRUZ
POINTED OUT WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE. IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF WHAT
MAKES THE LAW NOT THE JUDICIARY. SENATOR KENNEDY FOLLOWED UP ON
THAT AS MANY AS HAVE MY OTHER COLLEAGUES. I THINK ONE POINT
THAT SENATOR CRUZ MADE DESERVES REPEATING. MUCH OF WHAT WE ARE
HEARING TODAY AND WILL FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS PROCESS IS
ULTIMATELY AN EFFORT TO RELITIGATE THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION. IN FACT, WE HAD JUST HEARD JACK CAVANAUGH ATTACK —
WE HAVE JUST HEARD JUDGE KAVANAUGH ATTACKED BECAUSE HE IS A TRUMPED
NOMINEE. OTHERS HAVE BEEN ATTACKED HERE TODAY. THE ATTACK
IS ON PRESIDENT TRUMP NOT ON THEIR NOMINEE BECAUSE OF AN
UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT THE OUTCOME OF THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION. JUDGE KAVANAUGH AS A NOMINEE HAS
BEEN WIDELY RECOGNIZED FOR HIS JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND HIS DETAILED LEGAL WRITINGS
IN THE CONSTITUTION HIS OPINIONS ARE WIDELY CITED BY THE
APPELLATE JUSTICES AND SUPREME COURT AND ALTHOUGH HIS INTEGRITY
WAS JUST CHALLENGED STATING THAT NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS TO THIS
COMMITTEE HE WILL VOTE THE OTHER WAY ONCE BUT INTO OFFICE PUT
INTO THE SUPREME COURT, THE FACT IS THAT HIS RECORD AS THE
CHAIRMAN HAS ALREADY OUTLINED THIS THAT. HE SERVES ON THE DC
MAC CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS DOCUMENT — DC COURT OF APPEALS
HAVE BEEN ALTHOUGH HE HAS VOTED 97% OF THE
TIME WITH HIS COLLEAGUES IN THE MAJORITY ON THAT COURT SHOWING THAT HE WILL FOLLOW THE
LAW AND THAT HE DOES SO WITH THE MAJORITY SUPPORT OF BROAD AND I
WAS GOING TO SAY BIPARTISAN, NONPARTISAN JUDGES WHO ARE
APPOINTED BY REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC
PRESIDENTS AND CONSIDER SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CASES IN
AMERICA TODAY THAT IS THE JUDGE WE HAVE BEFORE US. IS A JUDGES
JUDGE. MANY CRITICS ARGUE THAT JUDGE KAVANAUGH WOULD PLAY AN
INSTRUMENTAL RULE — ROLE IN REVERSING DECISIONS AND I WONDER
HOW ONE CAN DRAW THAT DECISION GIVEN HIS RECORD OF EXHAUSTIVE
AND WEIGHTY CONSIDERATION OF THEM OR TO LEGAL LESSONS ON A
COURT SUCH AS THE DC MAC CIRCUIT . I RECOGNIZE IT IS POLITICS
DRAGGING THESE ATTACKS AND SO DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IN HIS
LEGAL OPINIONS JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS DEMONSTRATED WILLING US TO
RAIN IN CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHEN A
OVERSTEPPED THEIR RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. JUDGE
KAVANAUGH UNDERSTANDS AND IS FOCUSED THAT A JUDGE IS A
SERVANT OF THE LAW NOT A MAKER OF IT. WE SHOULD TAKE HIM AT HIS
OWN WORDS. THE JUDGES JOB IS TO INTERPRET THE LAW NOT TO MAKE
THE LAW OR POLICY. READ THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE AS WRITTEN.
READ THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN MINDFUL
OF HISTORY AND TRADITION. DON’T
MAKE UP NEW CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT ARE NOT IN THE TEXT
OF THE CONSTITUTION. DON’T SHY AWAY FROM ENFORCING
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT ARE IN THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
THOSE ARE HIS WORDS. THAT IS THE MAN WHO SITS BEFORE US NOMINATED
TO BE A JUSTICE ON THE HIGHEST COURT OF OUR LAND. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS THE BACKING
OF HIS FORMER LAW CLERKS AND STUDENTS, COLLEAGUES ON THE
BENCH AVOIDED BY REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS AND MANY OF
HIS LOCAL COMMUNITY WHICH HE REMAINS CLOSELY
INVOLVED. HE IS A MAN OF HONOR, INTEGRITY AND WELL-RESPECTED IN
THE LEGAL COMMUNITY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE HE IS QUALIFIED TO SERVE
ON OUR NATION’S HIGHEST COURT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I LOOK FORWARD TO
HEARING FROM HIM. THE NEXT FEW DAYS WILL PROVE INSIGHTFUL AS WE
DISCUSSED WITH JACK CAVANAUGH FOR THE PUBLIC TO HEAR IN HIS
OWN WORDS THE PROPER ROLE OF A JUDGE IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
SYSTEM. I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS HEARING AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH,
THANK YOU FOR BEING WILLING TO BE HERE. THANK YOU, MR.
CHARIMAN. >>SENATOR BOOKER.
>>WELCOME , JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND WELCOME
TO YOUR FAMILY SINCERELY AS WELL. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS AND
TAKING PART IN WHAT IS A TRULY HISTORIC MOMENT. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HOPE YOU DO NOT
THINK EARLIER THIS MORNING AND ANYWAY I WAS QUESTIONING OR
INTEGRITY OR YOUR DECENCY . I WAS APPEALING TO IT EARLIER AND
YOU HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING THIS HEARING GIVING MYSELF AND OTHERS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND MAKE OUR CASE AND
EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NOT RULED IN OUR FAVOR OF WHICH I’M
DISAPPOINTED I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I VALUE YOUR
FRIENDSHIP AND, FRANKLY, SOME OF THE MOST VALUED — VALUABLE
MOMENTS I HAVE HAD ON THE SENATE. I REMEMBER COMING TO AN
AGREEMENT WITH YOU AND I HAVE A DEEP RESPECT FOR YOU.>>IF YOU WORRY ABOUT OUR
FRIENDSHIP BEEN AFFECTED IT WILL NOT BE AND THAT GIVES ME AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SAY SOMETHING TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. THAT IS
ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE, YOU WOULD THINK THAT REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS DON’T TALK TO EACH OTHER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO
REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT WHEN THEY THINK THAT HAPPENS THEY SHOULD
THINK OF THE RECORD OF THIS COMMITTEE NOT JUST THIS
CHAIRMAN, THIS COMMITTEE IN THE THREE AND HALF YEARS AND MAYBE EVEN BEFORE I GOT TO
BE CHAIRMAN, IN THE THREE AND HALF YEARS I HAVE BEEN CHAIRMAN
EVERY BILL THAT GOT OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN A BIPARTISAN
BILL. PROCEED.>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT DOES
NOT DETRACT FROM THE FACT THAT I JUST FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH
THE WAY YOU HAVE BEEN CONCLUDING TODAY AND WHEN I FIRST GOT TO
THE SENATE I WAS VERY FORTUNATE A LOT OF SENIOR STATESMEN,
YOURSELF, SENATOR HATCH INCLUDED PULLED ME ASIDE AND GAVE ME
HEART WISDOM. I CAME IN A SPECIAL ELECTION AT A TIME THAT
WE WERE CHANGING SOME OF THE RULES . SENATOR LEVIN BROUGHT ME ASIDE
AND GAVE ME A HARD TALKING TO. SENATOR McCAIN AND ALL OF THEM
MADE SIMILAR POINTS ABOUT THIS IDEA THAT SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO
BE AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE AND SEE HOW YOU WOULD REACT IF THE
PENDULUM HAS SWUNG THE OTHER WAY, IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WARNED
ME THAT WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND AND YOU REALLY THINK IF
THE SHOE WERE ON THE OTHER FOOT AND I HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH
THAT WITH ALL HONESTY OF WHAT WOULD
THE REPUBLICANS BE SAYING AND WHAT WOULD WE BE SAYING IF WE
HAD A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW A DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE RIGHT
NOW AND THIS PROCESS WAS IN THE REVERSE AND I WOULD LIKE TO
BELIEVE HOW I WOULD BEHAVE AND I’M PRETTY CONFIDENT, I WOULD BE
A BETTING MAN AND BE WILLING TO BET THAT IF THE REPUBLICANS WERE
BEING DENIED EFFECTIVELY ABOUT 90% OF THE DOCUMENTS ABOUT A
PERSON’S PUBLIC RECORD, AND I BELIEVE IT IS IN THE ANALOGIES
THAT WERE MADE TO JUSTICE KAGAN IS NOT A FAIR ANALOGY. THIS IS PART OF
THE HISTORY THAT YES I WAS ONE OF THE MOST FORMATIVE TIMES AND
I WOULD NOT HIRE AN INTERN IN MY OFFICE TELLING ONLY 90% OF THE
RESUME. THERE IS NOT A PERSON HERE THAT WOULD BUY A HOME ONLY
SEE 90% EXCUSE ME ONLY SEEN 10% OF THE ROOMS. I JUST BELIEVE
WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE JUST ON THE OBJECTIVE VIEW OF FAIRNESS
IS SINCERELY UNFAIR AND INSULTING TO THE IDEALS THAT WE
TRY TO ACHIEVE WITH SOME SENSE OF COMITY AND SOME SENSE OF
RULE. I WANT TO GO DEEPER THAN THAT.
I’M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE JEOPARDY WOULD BE, WHAT YOU
JEOPARDY WOULD BE IF WE JUST WAITED FOR THE DOCUMENTS. LAST
NIGHT WE HAD A DOCUMENT DUMP OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES, TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES HAS BEEN SET ALREADY THERE IS NO JUDGE
THAT WOULD ALLOW A COURT PROCEEDING TO GO ON. NO JUDGE
WOULD MOVE FORWARD IF ONE OF THE PARTIES HAD JUST GOTTEN
DOCUMENTS AS A 5:00 LAST NIGHT OR POTENTIALLY 11:00. WHAT I
DON’T UNDERSTAND IS WHAT IS THE JEOPARDY OF JUST WAITING. NOT
JUST FOR THE IS, BUT OTHER DOCUMENTS. THE REALITY IS,
SENATOR GRASSLEY, YOU HAVE ASKED FOR PACIFIC MORE FINITE SET, OR
LIMITED SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT YOU HAVEN’T EVEN GOTTEN AND SO
WHETHER IT IS 90% OF THE RESUME OF THE
GENTLEMAN BEFORE US OR 50% OR 40%, THAT SHOULD COME WITHIN
TIME AND THERE IS NO JEOPARDY WHEN WE HAVE A LIFETIME
APPOINTMENT HE WOULD BE THERE SHOULD HE BE CONFIRMED FOR
DECADES WAITING ANOTHER WEEK OR FIVE DAYS OR TWO WEEKS FOR THOSE
DOCUMENTS THAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE REQUESTED WHICH IS A MORE LIMITED SUBSET
FOR EVEN THOSE TO COME THROUGH I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RUSH
IS ESPECIALLY GIVEN ALL THAT IS AT STAKE. THOSE ARE THE REASONS WHY I SAY
TO YOU WITH SINCERE RESPECT AS THIS IS AN ABSURD PROCESS. IT
JUST SEEMS UNFAIR TO ME AND IT COULD EASILY BE SOLVED BY AS
PUTTING A PAUSE ON THIS PROCESS, WAITING FOR DOCUMENTS,
EVALUATING AND IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE ROBUST SET OF HEARINGS ON THIS NOMINEE. AS I SAID, I
WOULD NOT HIRE AN INTERN IF I HAD ONLY SEEN 10% OF THEIR
RESUME. HERE TO HAVE A FULLER BODY OF
THE WORK IS GENTLEMAN BEFORE US WHO IS ONE OF — AS ONE OF MY
COLLEAGUES POPPING UP IN SOME OF THE MOST INTERESTING TIMES IN
THE LAST DECADE SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES ALREADY THE
LIMITED AMOUNT OF WHAT WE CALL 7% OF THE
DOCUMENTS I SEE UNFORTUNATELY THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE BEING
HELD CONFIDENTIAL WHICH I DON’T EVEN KNOW IF I CAN USE AN
ESTIMATE. I THINK THE PENALTY IS BEING OUSTED FROM THE SENATE.
EVEN A LITTLE LIMITED AMOUNT ABOUT DOCUMENTS HAVE POTENTIALLY
MADE MY QUESTIONING MORE SEPSIS TO GET TO THE HEART OF THE
ISSUES OF THE NOMINEE AND AGAIN, I TRIED TO SUMMON THE SPIRIT OF
SOME OF THE ELDERS THESE PEOPLE I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING
WITH TO SUMMON THAT SPIRIT TO BE AS
OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. I DO NOT THINK IT IS UNREASONABLE FOR US
TO WAIT A WEEK OR TWO TO GET THE FULL BODY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. IT
WILL CAUSE NO HARM OR DAMAGE EXCEPT TO HAVE MORE OF A FULL
TELLING OF WHAT IS AT STAKE. THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH AND WITH THIS NOMINEE REPRESENTS
FOR AS TO RUSH THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITHOUT A FULL SHARING
OF THE DOCUMENTS. WITH THAT I WILL CONTINUE WITH MY OPENING
STATEMENT.>>I HAVE SAID BEFORE ALREADY>>I WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY
TO PROBABLY SAY THAT YOU SAID I DIDN’T GET ALL THE DOCUMENTS I
REQUESTED. YOU PROBABLY HEARD THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SOMETHING
I SAID AFTER THE BREAK AND THAT WAS THAT I FIRST STARTED TALKING
ABOUT EXPECTING 1 MILLION DOCUMENTS AND WE END UP WITH 488,000 AND
THEN I WENT ON TO EXPLAIN THAT THE PROCESS WITH ALL OF THE
SOFTWARE AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT CAN SPEED THINGS UP,
DUPLICATE WERE ELIMINATED AND ETC. AND WE
HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTS I REQUESTED. JUST TO CORRECT YOU.
>>TO MAKE A PLACE THAT IF YOU
DON’T MIND. YOU REQUESTED A LIMITED SET OF
DOCUMENTS OF HIS TIME IN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE. WE
HAVE NOT RECEIVED ALL THE DOCUMENTS. THEY ARE STILL BEING
VETTED THROUGH THE SYSTEM OF NOT A REPRESENTATIVE THROUGH THE
COMMITTEE, BUT THE INDIVIDUAL IS STILL READING THROUGH THOSE
DOCUMENTS AS WE SPEAK. I IMAGINE SOME OF THEM WILL BE
DUMPED ON US AS THIS PROCESS IS GOING ON AND I PREDICT WITH
CONFIDENCE THAT SOME OF THOSE MIGHT BE TRICKLING OUT IN THE
DAYS BEFORE THE FULL SENATE VOTE.
>>YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CONFIDENTIAL AND YOU HAVE ACCESS
TO THEM RIGHT NOW. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A DETERMINATION AT LIKE 80% OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS
ARE ON THE WEBSITE SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE THEM AND IN REGARD TO
SOME FAVOR FORWARDED TO US WITHOUT A SECOND REVIEW, THAT
SECOND REVIEW GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THEM OUT TO
THE PUBLIC AND THERE IS NO REASON THAT THEY ARE EXCLUDED UNDER THE
LAW AND YOU CAN READ THOSE COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS
RIGHT NOW. >>IF WE HAD A LETTER DAYS AGO
AND I WILL RESEND THAT YOU BEFORE THE HEARING TOMORROW.
RESPONDED TO YOUR LETTER PLEX>>AGAIN, YOU DID NOT RESPOND TO
IT BY ALLOWING COMMITTEE CONFIDENTIAL
DOCUMENTS. PLEASE GO TO YOUR OPENING STATEMENT.
>>I, FORMER SENATOR NOW FORMER VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN TALKED
ABOUT NOT QUESTIONING YOUR CALLING’S MOTIVES AND SOME
ACROSS THE AISLE CALL THE EFFORTS BY SOME OF US SINCERELY
TO GET ACCESS AS SHAM AND CHARADE. I COULD GO THROUGH A LOT OF THE
WORDS THAT WERE USED QUESTIONING THE MOTIVATION I HAVE FOR DOING
WHAT I BELIEVE IS PERHAPS THE MOST GRAVE AND IMPORTANT DUTY
THAT I HAS A — HAVE AS A SENATOR AND YES IT HAS BEEN
POINTED OUT I HAVE ANNOUNCED MY DECISION ALREADY. MY DUTY TO THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND THE PEOPLE IS TO FULLY THAT AN
INDIVIDUAL. THAT IS WAY THE FULL RECORD SHOULD BE MADE CLEAR AND
WE HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. I ALSO HAVE
SAID THAT I OPPOSE THIS NOMINATION HAPPENING RIGHT NOW
BECAUSE OF THE MOMENT WE ARE IN AMERICAN HISTORY WHICH IS
UNPRECEDENTED. I REMIND YOU THAT WE HAVE HAD
BIPARTISAN STATEMENTS BY SENATORS WORKING IN TANGENT
ABOUT THE ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHICH WAS A
ATTACK GOING TO THE CORE OF OUR DEMOCRACY, THE VOTING PROCESS.
SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS PUT INTO PLACE AND THAT HAS LED TO DOZENS OF
PEOPLE BEING INDICTED, PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES. IT HAS LED TO DOZENS AND DOZENS OF CHARGES AND
THAT INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING. WE HAVE SEEN THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES CREDIBLY ACCUSED BY HIS OWN PERSONAL
LAWYER AS BEING AN UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR AND ALL OF THIS
WE HAVE ONE JUDGE BEING CHOSEN WHO IS NOT ON THE ORIGINAL LIST.
HE WAS NOT ON THE OUTSOURCED FEDERAL SOCIETY ORIGINAL LIST.
HE WAS NOT ON THE SECOND VERSION OF THAT LIST. HE GOT ONTO THAT
LIST AFTER HIS SPECIAL INVESTIGATION GOT
GOING, IN OTHER WORDS AFTER THE PRESIDENT WAS IN JEOPARDY. HE
WAS ADDED TO THE LIST AND THE PRESIDENT PULLED ONE PERSON FROM
ALL OF THAT LIST IT WAS ADDED LATE WOULD GIVE HIM AN A SENSE
THE ABILITY TO PICK A JUDGE THAT HAS SPOKEN VASTLY ABOUT A
PRESIDENT’S ABILITY TO BE PROSECUTED AND TO DISMISS OR AND
AN INVESTIGATION. THAT IS THE SECOND REASON I HAVE
ASKED FOR US TO PUT A PAUSE ON THIS PROCESS. FUNDAMENTAL TO THE
VERY BELIEFS OF THIS NATION. AS POWERFUL AND PROFOUND AS THE
DOCUMENTS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE THEY ARE NOT WORTH MUCH IF THE
PEOPLE THEMSELVES DON’T HAVE FAITH IN THEM AND I BELIEVE THE
NOMINATION OF A JUDGE FOR ALL OF THIS LIST SO POWERFULLY SPEAKS
TO A PRESIDENT’S DE FACTO IMMUNITY FROM ONGOING
INVESTIGATION PROSECUTION WILL SHAKE THE FAITH THAT MILLIONS
AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS HAVE THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCESS OF
THE SYSTEM AND I ASKED JUDGE KAVANAUGH TIME AND TIME AGAIN
TO RECUSE HIMSELF AND ALLEVIATE THE CONCERNS OF AMERICANS AND HE
HAS THUS FAR REFUSED TO DO SO. NOW, I AM UPSET ABOUT THE
PROCESS. THIS IS NOT MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE
THIS IS SINCERE CONCERN FOR A PROCESS THAT SEEMS WRONG AND NOT
OBJECTIVE AND FAIR. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT AS MY COLLEAGUES
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A RUSSIAN ATTACK
ON OUR NATION. THERE IS A LOT MORE GOING ON HERE THAT MAKES
THIS NOMINATION A GREAT CONCERN AND IT IS FRANKLY SOME OF THE
THINGS I HAVE HEARD FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. WHEN WE
TRAVELED THIS COUNTRY AND WHAT WE ARE HEARING FROM INDIVIDUALS
AND HOW THAT RELATES TO A POSITION ON THE SUPREME COURT.
RIGHT NOW, MILLIONS OF AMERICAN FAMILIES ARE WATCHING THIS
INSINCERE CONCERN AND FEAR, I HAVE HEARD THEM. I HAVE TRAVELED
THIS COUNTRY, I SPOKE TO REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. THEY
ARE FEARFUL ABOUT WHERE THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING AND WHAT IT WILL DO WHEN IT CAN
SHAPE THE LAW AND LIBERTIES FOR INDIVIDUALS FOR DECADES TO COME.
I HAVE TALKED TO WORKERS ALL OVER MY STATE AND ALL OVER THIS
NATION. WORKERS THAT WORK IN A COUNTRY WHERE WAGES ARE IN A 60
YEAR LOW AS A PORTION OF THE GDP WHOSE LABOR PROTECTION ARE BEING
LOOTED AND WHOSE UNIONS ARE UNDER ATTACK. SO MANY OF THOSE
INDIVIDUALS ARE ASKING WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF THEIR
LIFETIMES WILL BE AN INSTITUTION THAT ELEVATES THE DIGNITY OF
AMERICAN WORKERS OR ALLOWS POWERFUL CORPORATE INTEREST TO
CONTINUE TO WEAKEN LABOR PROTECTIONS THAT DIDN’T JUST
HAPPEN, LABOR PROTECTIONS THAT WERE FOUGHT FOR THAT PEOPLE
STRUGGLE FOR AND SOME YOU KNOW ACTUALLY DIED FOR ON — ARE
THESE LABOR RIGHTS GOING TO BECOME AGGRAVATED? ARE THEY
GOING TO BECOME LIMITED? FURTHER INCREASING THE VAST DISPARITIES
OF WEALTH AND POWER IN OUR COUNTRY. WE KNOW THIS, WE HAVE TALKED TO
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AND TALK TO CANCER SURVIVORS, AMERICAN
DEBILITIES — AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES. PARENTS OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE
DISABILITIES WHO BECAUSE OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT CAN NO
LONGER BE DENIED COVERAGE BECAUSE OF PRE-EXISTING
CONDITION. THERE IS A TEXAS CASE WHERE THAT IS BEING CHALLENGED
RIGHT NOW. THAT COULD LIKELY GO BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.
KNOWING YOUR RECORD IT IS RIGHT THAT THESE AMERICANS , SO MANY OF THEM WITH
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE ASKING WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT
WILL BE ABLE TO USE OF FIRMS AND ATTACK THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WITH
ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE. MANY PEOPLE WHO RIGHTFULLY
BELIEVE WHEN THEY READ THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS THAT TALK
ABOUT LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND HEALTH
CARE THEY BELIEVE IS FUNDAMENTAL. WE ALL KNOW TOO
MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE SET ASIDE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS BECAUSE THEY
ARE TOO HIGH BECAUSE OF WHAT CORPORATIONS ARE DOING THEIR.
PEOPLE PUT OFF GOING TO THE DOCTOR BECAUSE GOING IS TOO
EXPENSIVE. SENATOR DURBIN, I WAS IN YOUR
STATE TALKING TO A REPUBLICAN FARMER ABOUT HOW THE FARM COUNTRY IS
CHANGING SO DRAMATICALLY, THE LIVELIHOODS OF SO MANY INDEPENDENT FAMILY
FARMERS ARE BEING THREATENED BY THE CONSOLIDATION OF LARGE
MULTINATIONAL OPERATIONS. THESE CORPORATIONS HAVE ACQUIRED SO
MUCH POWER IS CONSOLIDATION NOW THE SEATS THAT THEY BUY, THE
PRICES GOING UP TO WHO THE DEATHS THEY CAN SIDE TO. IT IS
DRIVING SO MANY FARMERS OUT OF BUSINESS. YOU SEE, ONE FARMER WAS TELLING
ME ABOUT THE SUICIDE RATES . PEOPLE SAY THIS IS
HISTRIONICS. THIS IS NOT LIFE OR DEATH. I KNOW THESE THINGS
ACTUALLY ARE A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. WHEN UNINSURANCE
RATES WHEN THEY GO DOWN RATHER MORE PEOPLE WITHOUT HEALTH CARE
ULTIMATELY LOSE THEIR LIVES. THERE IS NOT ONE SENATOR ON THE
REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC SIDE WHO HAS NOT SEEN, I’VE ONLY BEEN
HERE FIVE YEARS AND I’VE SEEN ULCER WASHINGTON CHANGE BECAUSE
OF THE OBSCENE AMOUNT OF DARK MONEY POURING INTO OUR POLITICAL
PROCESS CORRUPTING OUR POLITICAL PROCESS, READING THE SYSTEM.
THIS NOMINATION WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON THAT. I HAVE SEEN
AMERICANS ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY THE BIPARTISAN WORK THAT I HAVE
DONE AND A FEELING TRAPPED BY BROKEN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. ONE THAT WE KNOW UNASSAILABLE HE
DISPROPORTIONATELY TARGETS BLACK AND BROWN AMERICANS. WHEN FAMOUS AMERICAN SAID WE
HAVE A SYSTEM THAT TREAT YOU BETTER IF YOU ARE RICH AND
GUILTY RATHER THAN POOR AND INNOCENT. THESE ISSUES ARE IN
BALANCE NOW AND EVERYONE IS WONDERING WHAT THE STORY OF
AMERICA IS. WE HAVE THIS GREAT LEADER, A MAN NAMED KING WHO SAID THE ARC OF THE MORAL
UNIVERSE IS LONG AND IT BENDS TOWARDS JUSTICE. THERE ARE SO
MANY AMERICANS WHO FOUGHT FOR THESE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WHOSE
FAMILY MEMBERS, WHO THEY REMEMBER, UNION ORGANIZERS,
CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST, WOMEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS WHO FOUGHT FOR,
STRUGGLE FOR AND DIED FOR MANY OF THESE RIGHTS. THE RIGHT FOR WOMEN TO MAKE
THEIR OWN MEDICAL DECISIONS INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO AN
ABORTION AND NOT A BACK ALLEY BUTCHER. THE RIGHT OF ALL
AMERICANS TO MARRY WHO THEY LOVE. THE RIGHT TO VOTE. AND TO WORK FREE OF
DISCRIMINATION REGARDLESS OF RACE AND THE RIGHTS OF ALL
AMERICANS. THESE ARE OUR AMERICAN RIGHTS. AND SO WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO
THESE QUESTIONS. I LOOKED THROUGH THE RECORD I HAVE HAD
ACCESS TO TO SEE THE PATTERN OF YOUR DECISIONS AND THAT IS THE
PATTERN THAT REALLY TROUBLES ME KNOW WE WILL GET A CHANCE TO GO
THROUGH THIS AND IT SEEMS SO CLEAR THESE SAME FOLKS SEEM TO IN OVER
AND OVER AGAIN. THE POWERFUL, THE PRIVILEGE, BIG CORPORATIONS,
SPECIAL INTEREST AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN PEOPLE THAT LOSE ARE THE PEOPLE
OF WHY I CAME TO WASHINGTON TO FIGHT, WORKING PEOPLE,
CONSUMERS, WOMEN, IMMIGRANTS, OR, THIS IS THE CHALLENGE BEFORE
US. THIS IS WHY SO MUCH IS AT STAKE. I LOVE THAT MY COLLEAGUES
KEEP GOING BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT UNDERSTAND
THAT I THINK OUR FOUNDERS WERE GENIUSES, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND
THAT THERE ARE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO UNDERSTAND THAT
THEY WERE ALSO FLAWED PEOPLE. WE ARE THE OLDEST CONSTITUTIONAL
DEMOCRACY. WE ARE THE OLDEST ONE. WE WERE FOUNDED AND YOU
KNOW THIS FOUNDED WE ALL PRAY LIKE. WE ARE NOT A
-WE BROKE WITH HUMAN EVENTS AND FORMED THIS NATION, GOD BLESS
AMERICA AND GOD BLESS THE FOUNDERS. WE KNOW THERE IDEALS
AND WE KNOW THAT THEY WERE FLAWED AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ANY
DOCUMENTS. NATIVE AMERICANS WERE REFERRED TO AS SAVAGES. BLACKS,
SLAVES TO AS FRACTIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS. AS ONE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
WAS USED TO SAY I CAN ONLY SAY 3/5 OF THE WORD.
>>SENATOR BOOKER .
>>I AM ALMOST DONE.>>THE ONLY REASON I STOPPED YOU
AT THIS POINT I THOUGHT THAT I WOULD LET PEOPLE GO AT LEAST AS
FAR AS SENATOR BLUMENTHAL AND YOU HAVE REACHED OUT POINT.
>>I APPRECIATE THAT I WILL PUSH THE TWO OR THREE MORE MINUTES.
MY POINT IS I’M PROUD OF THIS HISTORY.
>>YOUR TOP REACHED 10 MINUTES.
>>FROM THE ACTIVISM STONEWALL , SENECA FALLS, THERE IS AN
ACTIVISM THAT I WORRY RIGHTS THAT WERE GAINED IN WILL
ROLL BACK IN THE EXAMPLE HERE IS THERE IS AN AMAZING ACTIVIST
HERE RIGHT NOW MS. LANIER AND I THINK HER FOR COMING TODAY. IT
WAS 61 YEARS AGO ON THIS VERY DAY ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1957 THAT
SHE AT THE AGE OF 14 FACE CROWDS THAT WERE SHOUTING RACIAL. —
RACIAL SLURS. SHE WAS PART OF A GROUP KNOWN AS THE LITTLE RIGHT
— LITTLE ROCK NINE TWO TRY TO DESEGREGATE AND WE KNOW WHAT
THEY DID WAS MUCH BIGGER THAN THE FIRST
DAY OF SCHOOL, IT WAS THE FIRST MAJOR TEST OF THE LANDMARK
DECISION IN 1954 BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION. THERE ARE SOME THAT HE HAS
APPOINTED THAT REFUSED TO SAY THAT THAT’S SETTLED LAW. THERE
PEOPLE LIKE HER THAT ARE PART OF GAINING RIGHTS INTO THIS COUNTRY
ADVANCING THE IDEALS OF THIS NATION TOWARD THE PURITY OF THE
IDEALS DESPITE THE IMPERFECTIONS AND NOW THE FEAR AND THE WORRY
IS WITH A TREND OF THE COURT IS
DOING IS ROLLING BACK THOSE GAMES UNDERMINING THAT PROGRESS
RESTRICTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AS THE RISE OF CORPORATIONS AND
DARK MONEY AND THE RISE OF THE INTERESTS OF THE POWERFUL AND
THE PRIVILEGED AND THE ELITE. I JUST SAY IN CONCLUSION, I SAID
THIS TO YOU IN A HEART-TO-HEART MOMENT IN THE LAST SECOND SHE
WERE, YOU CAME TO MY OFFICE TO MEET ME ME ONE-ON-ONE AND I
POINTED TO THE MAP ON MY DESK WHICH IS THE CENTRAL BOARD OF
NORTH JERSEY A PLACE WITH MIGHTY PEOPLE. A LOW INCOME COMMUNITY
AND PEOPLE STILL STRUGGLING THAT THAT IS THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE
RIGHT NOW. THAT IS WHAT IS AT STAKE AND I SAY IN CONCLUSION,
THIS, TO ME, IS A PROFOUND AND HISTORICAL MOMENT. I CANNOT
SUPPORT YOUR NOMINATION NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE BODY OF YOUR
WORK, BUT ALSO THE PERVERSE PROCESS BY WHICH THIS COMES
FORWARD. WE SHOULD NOT VOTE NOW. WE SHOULD WAIT. IF WE ARE NOT
WAITING WE SHOULD OBJECT TO YOUR NOMINATION.
>>SENATOR TILLIS. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHARIMAN, I HAVE
A 12 MINUTE PREAMBLE AND 10 MINUTES OF COMMENTS. I HOPE TO
BE HIM AND FIRST OFF TO ASHLEY I KNOW THAT YOU’VE GONE THROUGH A
VERY DIFFICULT DAY AND YOU’VE HELD UP WELL AND TO YOUR
PARENTS, JUDGE KAVANAUGH I NEED TO COMPLEMENT YOU ON YOUR
MOTHER’S COMPOSURE. MY MOTHER WOULD’VE BEEN OUT OF THE CHAIR
BY NOW. I APPRECIATE ALL YOU HAVE DONE. YOU HAVE RAISED YOUR
SON RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO GO BACK AND
RECOGNIZE WE WERE GOING TO BE HERE. THIS WAS NOT GOING TO BE A
PEACEFUL MOMENT. WE HAD EVERY MOMENT ON THIS COMMITTEE EITHER
PUBLICLY STAY OR PARTICIPATE IN A PRESS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE
SUN HAD SET ON THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF YOUR NOMINATION BECAUSE
THEY WERE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST YOU. NOW WE ARE ASKING FOR ALL
KINDS OF DOCUMENTS AND YOU ARE GETTING THEM. AS A MATTER OF
FACT I THINK THE CHAIR HAS DONE AN EXTRAORDINARY JOB. HE
ACQUIRED AS MANY AS MILLION DOCUMENTS. HAVE ALL BEEN PROVIDED AND I AM
NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I AM A TECHNOLOGIST AND I MAY PROCESS
PERSON AND I KNOW DAMN WELL IF YOU GET DOCUMENTATION
ELECTRONICALLY YOU CAN GET THROUGH IT IN A MATTER OF HOURS
AND 40 DOCUMENTS THAT GET SENT YESTERDAY THEY HAD PLENTY OF
TIME TO GET DOCUMENTS THEY ONLY NEED IS BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW
THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST YOU. ALSO WANT TO COMPLEMENT YOU
ON YOUR COMPOSURE. YOU HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF NOTES AND I WILL
SPEND MORE OF MY TIME LISTENING TO YOUR ON THIS RATHER THAN
TALKING OVER YOU AND TRY TO SIMPLIFY THINGS INTO YES NO
ANSWERS THAT YOU KNOW YOU CAN’T RESPOND TO. I LOOK FORWARD TO
YOUR TESTIMONY TOMORROW. AS THE HEARING WAS GOING ON,
THERE WERE TWO THINGS, I AM NOT DOING MY PREPARED STATEMENTS I
WILL SUBMIT THEM FOR THE RECORD. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THIS
DARK MONEY AND I GOT AN EMAIL FROM ORGANIZING FROM ACTION.
THAT IS THE LEGACY CAMPAIGN OF PRESIDENT OBAMA. TELLING ME TO
OPPOSE YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO DENY REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS,
DENY HEALTHCARE COVERAGE, ADVANCED CLIMATE CHANGE IN A BAD
WAY AND AND GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION. I DON’T KNOW NEAR AS
MUCH ABOUT THE INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT AS LET’S SAY SENATOR
SASSE , I KNOW YOU CANNOT DO ANY OF
THAT PIERCE WHAT YOU MAY END UP DOING IS FINDING OUT THAT WE GOT
LAZY, WE DIDN’T WORK HARD ENOUGH, WE DID NOT UNDERSTAND
THE CONSTITUTION, WE DID NOT REACH ACROSS THE AISLE TO CREATE
ENDURING VALUE WHICH IS — MOSTLY THE REASON PEOPLE GET
FRUSTRATED. JUDGE FOR SIX SAID IT IS NOT MY
JOB TO DO YOUR JOB. IF YOU ARE FRUSTRATED AND WORRIED ABOUT THE
PROCESS OF SOMEONE BEING DENIED COVERAGE FOR PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS THEN LET’S FIX THAT. THAT IS WHY I FILED BILL A
COUPLE WEEKS AGO. DON’T PLAY POLITICS AND BLAMED THE INADEQUATE
ARCHITECTURE. IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE BALLS AND STRIKES THAT TRENTON CALLED ON THE BENCH
AROUND REGULATORY ISSUES IT SEEMS YOU CALL THOSE TYPES ON
BOTH SIDES. THERE SEEM TO BE FLAWS IN THERE THAT NEED TO BE
FIXED. FOR THE ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOM THAT ARE STUDIED ON THE LAW
RATHER THAN TRYING TO GET JUDGE KAVANAUGH TO COMMIT ONE WAY OR
THE OTHER ON THESE POLICY INITIATIVES THE PRESIDENT OBAMA
AND OTHERS AROUND THIS TABLE ARE INTERESTED IN THEM TO EXPLAIN TO
YOU THE LEGAL THEORY BEHIND HIS POSITION THAT MAY HAVE PRODUCE AN OUTCOME
THAT HE DIDN’T LIKE, BUT BECAUSE HE DID IT BASED ON THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAWS. DON’T
EXPECT HIM TO BE A POLITICIAN. AS FOR MOTIVATION WHAT HAS BEEN SAID VIOLATES ONE
PERSON ON THIS COMMITTEE THAT ON THE ONE HAND WE SHOULD QUESTION
OTHER PEOPLE’S MOTIVATION AND I FIND IT PERSONALLY INSULTING ON
THE OTHER HAND BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE BEFORE US AN EMINENTLY
WELL IF I JUDGE, SOMEONE WHO WILL CALL THE STRIPE TO SUGGEST SIMON KLINK PLACE TO
SUPPORT HIM I’M COMPLICIT AND EVIL MAKES ME WONDER THE
SINCERITY ABOUT QUESTIONING OTHER PEOPLE’S MOTIVES. JUDGE
KAVANAUGH, I AM GLAD THAT YOU ARE BEFORE US. I BELIEVE THAT
YOU HAVE 300 OPINIONS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD LOOK AT AND READ AND TRY TO SPAR WITH YOU ON THE
BASIS OF YOUR LEGAL KNOWLEDGE, YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL
UNDERSTANDING AND THE CONSTRUCTS. IT WOULD BE GREAT
AND I HOPE THAT PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY TAKE TIME TO LOOK AT
THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN YOUR RESUME. IT MIGHT NOT BE WHERE YOU WENT
TO SCHOOL. IT MIGHT NOT BE WHERE YOU PRACTICE LAW IT IS THE 307
DIFFERENT OPINIONS YOU CAN READ. SPAR ON THE BASIS OF YOUR LEGAL
KNOWLEDGE THOSE OF YOU THAT WANT TO PROVE
TO BE THE SMARTEST LAWYER IN THE ROOM AND SEE IF YOU CAN PROVE A
BETTER THEORY THAT CAN GIVE JUDGE KAVANAUGH PAUSE. THAT IS
NOT WHAT THIS HAS BEEN ABOUT AND I’M SO GLAD THAT I’M ONE OF THE
LAST PEOPLE TO DO AN OPENING STATEMENT BECAUSE WHAT I HOPE I
HEAR TOMORROW AND JUST FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT, WE WILL HAVE
30 MINUTE ROUNDS WHICH IN SENATE TIME IS YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER
TOMORROW AND THEN WE WILL HAVE 20 MINUTE ROUNDS THE FOLLOWING
DAY. EVERYONE TAKE TIME TO TALK ABOUT LEGAL THEORY. STOP THE
THEATER AND START TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS MEANINGFUL. I THINK IF
WE DO THAT I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE, JUDGE KAVANAUGH YOU
WILL BE JUST AS KAVANAUGH AND I AM
PLEASED TO SEE HOW YOU COMPOSURE SOUTH TODAY. I WILL BE ASKING
YOU SEVERAL DUSTIN JOHNSON JUDGMENTS LIKE AND I KNOW YOU PROBABLY MADE THE
RIGHT DECISION AND I BELIEVE THAT WHEN YOU GET CONFIRMED TO
THE BENCH YOU WILL ACTUALLY TAKE SOME OTHER OPINIONS I DON’T LIKE
BECAUSE IT IS WHAT I WISH YOU COULD DO FOR ME BECAUSE WE
FAILED TO GET IT DONE HERE. IT WILL BE DONE FOR THE RIGHT
REASONS AND I BELIEVE IF PEOPLE OBJECTIVELY LOOK AT YOUR RECORD
THEY WILL BE HARD-PRESSED TO TAKE THIS THEATER TODAY AND BOIL IT DOWN INTO
SOMETHING THAT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOU ARE AN ACTIVIST JUDGE
JUST WAITING TO BE PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. I THINK YOU
ARE ONE OF THE SINGLE GREATEST OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE
THE SUPREME COURT MAKE US DO OUR JOB AND TO RAIN IN THE
DANGEROUSLY HIGH AMOUNT OF AUTHORITY THAT
OUR ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH HAS. AND THAT’S ALL I WANT YOU TO DO.
TO ASKING YOU RUSSIANS. IDEAL BACK THE REST OF MY TIME. — TO
ASKING YOU QUESTIONS. I GIVE BACK THE REST OF MY TIME.
>>SENATOR GRAHAM HAS JOINED US. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD
LIKE TO RESTATE MY OBJECTIVE WHICH IS MY MOTION TO POSTPONE
THIS HEARING. NUMBER OF COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY MY
HONORED AND RESPECTED COLLEAGUES. I WOULD LIKE TO
ADDRESS A FEW OF THEM. THERE WAS SOME MENTION OF A CONCERN ABOUT
JUSTICE KAGAN HEARING AND THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT
THOSE CERTAIN RECORDS WERE SENSITIVE AND SHOULD THEREFORE
NOT BE DISCLOSED. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS
APPOINTIVE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THAT TIME AND TODAY THAT THOSE
WERE ACTIVE CASES IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND FOR THAT REASON THERE
IS AN UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT THAT THEY WERE OF A
SENSITIVE NATURE AND SHOULD NOT BE DISCLOSED. IN TERMS OF THE
POINT THAT HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT PLAYING POLITICS, AND BLAMING
THESE PLAIN COURT — THE SUPREME COURT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE
FACT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS THAT HAVE
BEEN RUN INDICATING AN INTENTION TO USE THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AS A
POLITICAL TOOL TO AND THINGS LIKE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT,
THE VOTING ACT AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT WHICH MAKES THIS
CONVERSATION A LEGITIMATE ONE IN TERMS OF REASONS FOR CONCERNS
WHETHER THIS NOMINEE HAS BEEN NOMINATED TO FULFILL A POLITICAL
AGENDA AS IT RELATES TO USING THAT COURT AND THE USE OF THAT
COURT. AS IT RELATES TO THE 42,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS I FIND
IT INTERESTING THAT WE GET THOSE DOCUMENTS LESS THAN 24 HOURS
BEFORE THIS HEARING IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN, BUT IT TOOK 57 DAYS
FOR THOSE DOCUMENTS TO BE VETTED BEFORE WE WOULD BE GIVEN THOSE
DOCUMENTS. THERE IS SOME SUGGESTION THAT WE SHOULD BE
SPEED READERS AND READ 42,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS IN ABOUT 15
HOURS WHEN IT TOOK THE OTHER SIDE 57 DAYS TO REVIEW THE SAME DOCUMENTS.
THE LOGIC ON THE MATH IS NOT APPLYING. THE CHAIRMAN HAS
SUGGESTED 10% OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT IS 10% OF THE FULL RECORD. THE
NOMINEE’S PERSONAL LAWYER HAS ONLY GIVEN A 7% OF HIS
DOCUMENTS. SEVEN OUT OF 100% OF THE FULL RECORD. REPUBLICANS
HAVE ONLY GIVEN 4% OF THESE RECORDS WERE MADE IN PUBLIC THAT
IS 4% OF 100% OF A FULL RECORD. 96% OF HIS RECORD IS MISSING.
96% OF HIS RECORD IS MISSING. IT IS REASONABLE, IT IS REASONABLE
THAT WE SHOULD WANT TO REVIEW HIS ENTIRE RECORD AND WE CAN
DEBATE AMONG US THE RELEVANCE OF WHAT IS IN HIS RECORD. IT SHOULD
NOT BE THE ABILITY OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS COMMITTEE TO UNILATERALLY MAKE DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT WE WILL AND WILL NOT SEE IN TERMS OF THE
ADMISSIBILITY INSTEAD OF ARGUING ABOUT THE WEIGHT OF WHATEVER IS
MADE ADMISSIBLE. THE LATE SENATOR KENNEDY OF
MASSACHUSETTS CALLED THESE HEARINGS A SUPREME COURT
NOMINEE’S JOB INTERVIEW WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. BY THAT
STANDARD THE NOMINEE BEFORE US IS COMING INTO HIS JOB INTERVIEW
WITH MORE THAN 90% OF HIS BACKGROUND HIDDEN. I WOULD THINK
THAT ANYONE WHO WANTED TO SIT ON THE HIGHEST COURT WOULD BE PROUD
OF THEIR RECORD AND WOULD WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO SEE IT. I
WOULD THINK THAT ANYONE PRIVILEGED TO BE NOMINATED TO
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD WANT TO BE
CONFIRMED IN A PROCESS THAT IS NOT UNDER A CLOUD, THAT RESPECTS
DUE PROCESS. I WOULD THINK THAT ANYONE NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD WANT TO HAVE A HEARING THAT IS
CHARACTERIZED BY TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS AND INTEGRITY AND
NOT SHROUDED BY INSURGENCY AND SUSPICION AND CONCEALMENT AND
DOUBT. WE SHOULD NOT BE MOVING FORWARD
WITH THIS HEARING. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS. JUDGE KAVANAUGH AS MOST OF US
KNOW AND I MENTIONED TO YOU AND YOU HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN AND I KNOW THEY ARE VERY PROUD
OF YOU AND I KNOW YOU ARE A GREAT PARENT AND I APPLAUD ALL
YOU HAVE DONE IN CODY COMMUNITY AND AS WE ALL KNOW THIS IS A
WEEK WHEN MOST STUDENTS IN OUR COUNTRY GO BACK TO SCHOOL. AND
IT OCCURS TO ME THAT MANY YEARS AGO RIGHT AROUND THIS TIME I WAS
STARTING KINDERGARTEN AND I WAS IN A SCHOOL BUS ON MY WAY TO
THOUSAND OAKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AS PART OF THE SECOND CLASS OF
STUDENTS AS BUSING DESEGREGATED BERKELEY CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS. THIS WAS DECADES AFTER THE SUPREME COURT RULED BROWN V.
BORAD OF EDUCATION THAT SEPARATE WAS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL AND AS I
HAVE SAID MANY TIMES CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN NOT BEEN ON
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HE COULD NOT HAVE LED A
UNANIMOUS DECISION AND THE OUTCOME THEN OF THAT CASE MAY
HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFERENT HAD THAT DECISION NOT COME DOWN THE
WAY IT DID I MAY NOT HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY THAT ALLOWED ME
TO BECOME A LAWYER OR PROSECUTOR . I LIKELY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ELECTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF SAN FRANCISCO OR THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA. I MOST CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE SITTING
HERE AS A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. FOR ME A SUPREME
COURT SEAT IS NOT ONLY ABOUT ACADEMIC ISSUES OF LEGAL
PRECEDENT OR JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY , IT IS PERSONAL. WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO SIT ON IT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL ON THAT
COURT CAN HAVE. IMPACT ON PEOPLE YOU WILL NEVER MEET AND WHOSE
NAMES YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. WHETHER A PERSON CAN EXERCISE
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CAST A BALLOT MAY BE DECIDED IF JUDGE KAVANAUGH SITS ON THAT
COURT. WHETHER A WOMAN WITH BREAST CANCER CAN AFFORD HEALTH
ARE — HEALTHCARE WHETHER A GAY OR TRANSGENDER
WORKER IS TREATED WITH DIGNITY OR TREATED AS A SECOND-CLASS
CITIZEN, WHETHER A WOMAN WHO GOT PREGNANT AT IS FORCED TO GIVE
BIRTH OR GO TO A BACK ALLEY FOR AN
ABORTION. WHETHER A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE OR WHETHER HE WILL BE ABOVE THE LAW. ALL OF THIS
MAY COME DOWN TO TRENTON ABOUT AND THAT IS WHAT
IS AT STAKE IN THIS NOMINATION. THE STAKES ARE EVEN HIGHER
BECAUSE OF THE MOMENT WE ARE IN AND MANY OF US HAVE DISCUSSED
THIS. THESE ARE UNPRECEDENTED TIMES. AS OTHERS HAVE ALREADY
OBSERVED LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER
AND CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN WERE EACH FOUND GUILTY OR PLEADED GUILTY
TO A FELONY. THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER UNDER OATH
DECLARE THAT THE PRESIDENT DIRECTED HIM TO COMMIT A FEDERAL
CRIME YET THAT SAME PRESIDENT IS RACING TO APPOINT TO A LIFETIME
POSITION ON THE HIGHEST WORDS IN THE LAND A COURT THAT VERY WELL
MAY DECIDE HIS LEGAL FATE. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT CONFIRMING
JUDGE KAVANAUGH COULD MEAN. IT IS IMPORTANT , MORE IMPORTANT I
WOULD SAY THAN EVER THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY WITH THIS NOMINATION. THAT IS
WHY IT IS EXTREMELY DISTURBING THAT SENATE REPUBLICANS HAVE
PREVENTED THIS BODY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
FROM FULLY REVIEWING TRENTON RECORD AND DISREGARDED
JUST ABOUT EVERY TRADITION AND PRACTICE THAT I HEARD SO MUCH
ABOUT BEFORE I ARRIVED IN THIS PLACE. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WHEN YOU AND I
MET IN MY OFFICE YOU SAID WITH RESPECT TO JUDICIAL DECISIONS
THAT RUSHED DECISIONS ARE OFTEN BAD DECISIONS. I AGREE WITH YOU.
I AGREE WITH YOU AND WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHO WILL SET
ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES I BELIEVE YOUR
POINT COULDN’T BE MORE IMPORTANT. MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN JUDGE KAVANAUGH WAS NOMINATED IN
JULY HE EXPRESSED HIS BELIEF THAT A JUDGE MUST BE
INDEPENDENT, INTERPRET THE LAW AND NOT MAKE LAW. IN REVIEWING
THIS NOMINEE’S BACKGROUND I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT
GUIDES HIM IS NOT INDEPENDENT IS NOT EVEN IDEOLOGY, I WOULD SUGGEST IT IS NOT EVEN
IDEOLOGY. WHAT I BELIEVE GUYS AND WHAT HIS RECORD THAT WE HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO SEE SHOWS IS WHAT GUIDES THIS NOMINEE. THIS
NOMINEE HAS DEVOTED HIS ENTIRE CAREER TO A CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICAN AGENDA HELPING TO SPEARHEAD A PARTISAN
INVESTIGATION TO PRESIDENT CLINTON HELPING GEORGE
W. BUSH’S LEGAL PAYMENT SURE THAT EVERY VOTE WAS NOT COUNTED AND HELP YOU TO CONFIRM PARTISAN
JUDGES AND ENACT PARTISAN LAWS AS PART OF THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE
AND IN ALL OF THESE EFFORTS HE HAS SHOWN THAT HE SEEKS TO WIN
AT ALL COSTS EVEN IF THAT MEANS PUSHING THE ENVELOPE. IF WE LOOK
AT HIS RECORD ON THE D.C. CIRCUIT AND RECENT WRITINGS
AND STATEMENTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE NOMINEE HAS BROUGHT HIS
POLITICAL BIAS TO THE BENCH . HE HAS CARRIED OUT DEEPLY
CONSERVATIVE PERSON AND DOES AS PART OF THE JUDGE BIG BUSINESS
OVER ORDINARY AMERICANS , POLLUTERS OVER CLEAN AIR AND
WATER AND THE POWERFUL OVER THE VULNERABLE. JUST LAST YEAR HE
PRAISED THE DISSENT IN ROE V. WADE AND SCARED 17-YEAR-OLD GIRL SEEKING
TO END HER PREGNANCY. HE HAS DISREGARDED THE SUPREME COURT
PRECEDENT TO ARGUE THAT UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS WERE REALLY
EMPLOYEES UNDER OUR LABOR LAWS. WE HAVE WITNESSED HORRIFIC MASS
SHOOTINGS FROM PARKLAND TO LAS VEGAS TO JACKSONVILLE FLORIDA
YET JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS GONE FURTHER THAN THE SUPREME COURT AND HAS
WRITTEN THAT BECAUSE ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE IN COMMON USE ASSAULT WEAPONS AND
HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES CANNOT BE BE UNDER THE SECOND
AMENDMENT. WHEN HE WAS PART OF AN INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT HE WAS
DOGGED IN DEMANDING ANSWERS AND YET HE HAS SINCE CHANGED HIS
TUNE ARGUING THAT PRESIDENTS SHOULD NOT BE
INVESTIGATED OR HELD ACCOUNTABLE. A POSITION THAT I
AM SURE IS NOT LOST ON THIS PRESIDENT. THESE POSITIONS ARE
PARTISAN. JUDGE GORSUCH SAID THEY ARE NOT JUST
POLITICIANS IN ROBES. I FEAR THAT HIS RECORD INDICATES THAT
IS EXACTLY WHAT HE VERY WELL MAY BE. I KNOW MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE AND THE NOMINEES FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES HAVE
ASSURED US THAT HE IS DEVOTED TO HIS FAMILY AND SUPPORTIVE OF HIS
LAW CLERKS AND VOLUNTEERS IN HIS COMMUNITY AND I DON’T DOUBT THAT
AT ALL. THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE. I’D RATHER THAT WE THINK
ABOUT THIS HEARING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES AND THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON GENERATIONS OF
AMERICANS TO COME AND DO WE WANT THAT COURT TO CONTINUE A LEGACY OF BEING ABOVE POLITICS AND
UNBIASED OR ARE WE PREPARED TO PARTICIPATE IN A PROCESS THAT IS
TAINTED AND LEADS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC QUESTIONING THE INTEGRITY
OF THIS PROCESS? I WILL CLOSE BY SAYING THIS, WE
HAVE A SYSTEM OF JUSTICE THAT IS SYMBOLIZED BY A STATUE OF A
WOMAN HOLDING SCALES AND SHE WEARS A BLINDFOLD . JUSTICE WEARS A BLINDFOLD
BECAUSE WE HAVE SAID UNDER OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM JUSTICE SHOULD BE BLIND TO A PERSON’S
STATUS. WE HAVE SAID IN OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE JUSTICE SHOULD
BE BLIND TO SAY HOW MUCH MONEY SOMEONE HAS, TO WHAT YOU LOOK
LIKE OR WHO YOU LOVE, TO WHO YOUR PARENTS ARE IN THE LANGUAGE
THEY SPEAK. EVERY SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MUST UNDERSTAND AND HOLD
THAT IDEAL. SERVER, SHOULD THOSE CASES, FOR
YOU, JUDGE KAVANAUGH, I AM CONCERNED WHETHER YOU WOULD
TREAT EVERY AMERICAN EQUALLY. INSTEAD, SHOW ALLEGIANCE TO THE
POLITICAL PARTY AND THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA THAT HAS
SHAPED AND BUILD YOUR CAREER. I AM CONCERNED YOUR LOYALTY WOULD
BE TO THE PRESIDENT WHO APPOINTED YOU AND NOT TO THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. THESE CONCERNS, I HOPE
YOU WILL ANSWER DURING THE COURSE OF THIS HEARING, I
BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE THESE CONCERNS.
I ALSO BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO FULL AND
CANDID ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO YOU DURING
THE COURSE OF THIS HEARING. I WILL BE PAYING VERY CLOSE
ATTENTION TO YOUR TESTIMONY AND I THINK YOU KNOW THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC WILL BE PAYING VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO YOUR TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU. >>SENATOR GRAHAM.
>>AKAMAI THE LAST PERSON?>>WE WILL HEAR FROM THE NOMINEE
AND HIS INTRODUCERS BEFORE YOU CAN GO HOME AND GO TO BED.>>OKAY. THANK YOU. I WAS GOING
TO ASK YOU TO TAKE ME TO DINNER BUT THAT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
>>YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. STUCK TO MY COLLEAGUES I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU, BUT WE HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW. I THINK YOU HAVE TO BE
BLIND AS TO WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. HAVE YOU HEARD, IF YOU
WHERE DID HE COME FROM? HE WAS TED KENNEDY OFFICE AND IT
JUDICIARY PERSON. WHAT DO YOU THINK REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO
GO FIND A JUDGE? THE WHOLE ARGUMENT IS YOU CAN BE A
CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, BUT YOU HAVE TO
NOMINATE A LIBERAL TO BE FAIR TO THE COUNTRY. IS ABSURD. DO YOU
THINK IS BETTER — WHERE DO YOU THINK RUTH BADER GINSBURG CAME
FROM? WONDERFUL PERSON. WHAT GROUPS YOU USE TO FROM WESTERN
MARK THIS IS SHAPING UP TO BE THE HYPOCRISY HEARING AND THAT
IS HARD TO DO IN THE SENATE AND — IN TODAY’S TIME TO BE
HYPOCRITICAL. LET ME .2 FEW OF THESE THINGS. CLINTON , IT DIDN’T BOTHER ANYBODY FOR
CLINTON TO NOMINATE PRYOR WHILE HE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION. WE
ACTUALLY DID IT. DIDN’T BOTHER ANY OF YOU THAT TED KENNEDY THAT PERSON WAS HIS CHOICE. IT
DIDN’T BOTHER ME EITHER BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT I EXPECT. THIS IS
RIDICULOUS. YOU ARE ONE OF THE BEST CHOICES ANY REPUBLICAN
COULD MAKE . AS I SAID WITH JUSTICE COURSES
I’M GLAD YOU ARE HERE BECAUSE THERE WERE DAYS I WAS WONDERING
WOULD HAVE PICKED. AND THIS IS FROM MY POINTER VIEW. LET’S TALK
ABOUT ROE V. WADE. WHO WOULD EVER PLAY POLITICS ON
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL WITH THAT ASKED WHAT A PASTOR DONALD TRUMP
IS. UNTIL YOU HEAR ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON. FEBRUARY 3, 2016 THIS
IS WHAT SHE SAID. SHE WAS ASKED IF SHE HAD A LITMUS TEST TO
SUPREME COURT NOMINEES AND I DO HAVE A LITMUS TEST. I HAVE A
BUNCH BECAUSE THE NEXT PRESIDENT COULD GET AS MANY AS THREE
APPOINTMENTS. I HOPE SHE IS RIGHT. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE TO
PRESERVE ROE V. WADE AND NOT LET IT BE NIBBLED AWAY OR REPEALED.
SHE SOUNDS VERY OPEN-MINDED. OCTOBER 2016 , WE NEEDED SUPREME COURT THAT
WILL STAND UP ON BEHALF OF WOMEN’S RIGHT. IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT WE NOT REVERSE ROE V. WADE. I WANT A SUPREME COURT THAT WILL
STICK WITH ROE V. WADE AND A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. I
UNDERSTAND WHERE SHE’S COMING FROM. ANYBODY RUNNING FOR
PRESIDENT OVER THERE I DARE YOU TO DISAGREE WITH HER.
YOU WILL WIND UP LIKE I DID GETTING 1%. IF YOU EVEN SUGGEST
THAT YOU WILL TAKE A NOMINEE THAT IS NOT GOING TO UPHOLD ROE
V. WADE THAT IS THE END OF YOU. YOU FIGURE THAT OUT. YOU DON’T
NEED ME TO TELL YOU THAT. THIS IS THE WAY WE DO POLITICS. THIS
IS A BIG DECISION. THERE ARE TWO SIDES AND A BUNCH OF NUANCES.
HERE’S WHAT I KNOW ABOUT YOU, YOU WROTE A BIG BOOK WHICH I
WILL NEVER READ AND YOU ARE GOING TO TELL US WHAT IT TAKES TO OVERTURN LONG
STANDING. NO ONE ON THE SIDE WILL CARE IF YOU OVERTURN
CITIZENS UNITED. AS A MATTER FACT, THEY WILL CHEER YOU ON. SOMEONE WILL CHALLENGE IT AND
YOU WILL PROBABLY SAY LET ME HEAR BOTH SIDES AND I WILL TELL
YOU WHETHER OR NOT I SHALL UPHOLD IT. SO HILLARY CLINTON WE
KNOW WHERE SHE IS ON ROE V. WADE AND THAT IS THE WAY IT IS.
EXECUTIVE POWER, THIS IDEA THAT TRUMP SHOWS YOU TO SAVE HIM,
AMAZING CONCEPT SINCE YOU SAID WHAT YOU SAID
BACK IN 1998 AND 2008. THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHEN CLINTON WAS
BEING IMPEACHED MY GOOD FRIEND AND THIS IS TRUE, HE IS MY GOOD
FRIEND, ON FEBRUARY 12, 1999 INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD
THEORY DELIBERATION OF THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT TRIAL AN
ARTICLE BY BRETT KAVANAUGH SUGGESTING THAT YOU SHOULD WAIT
IF THERE IS AN INDICTMENT UNTIL AFTER THE PRESIDENT IS OUT OF
OFFICE. THE SAME CONCEPT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY WHEN
THE SHE WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT HERE IS WHAT JOE SAID ABOUT YOUR
THINKING. THE PRESIDENT IS NOT SIMPLY
ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, HE IS UNIQUE. HE IS THE EMBODIMENT OF
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND HEAD OF A POLITICAL PARTY. IF HE THE
ENTIRE GOVERNMENT WOULD SUFFER IN THE MILITARY AND ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES COULD BE SEVERE. THESE REPERCUSSIONS SHOULD NOT
RESULT FROM THE JUDGMENT EVERY SINGLE PROSECUTOR WHETHER IT BE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR SPECIAL COUNSEL. NONPROSECUTION OF A PRESIDENT IS
INEVITABLE UNAVOIDABLY A POLITICAL ACT THAT’S AS THE
CONSTITUTION SUGGESTS THE DECISION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT
QUALITIES IN OFFICE SHOULD BE MADE FOR ALL GREAT NATIONAL
POLITICAL JUDGMENT: — AND OUR COUNTRY SHOULD BE MADE IN THE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ACCORDING TO JOE BIDEN. THE GIFT
THAT KEEPS ON GIVING. I THINK THAT IS HYPOCRITICAL.
DURING THE CLINTON DAYS YOU WERE RIGHT, BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU
ARE A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC. THERE ARE SO MANY, HOW MANY
MINUTES I HAVE CRACKS DEATHS? — HOW MANY MINUTES DO I HAVE?
THE BOTTOM LINE ON GUNS IS DIANNE FEINSTEIN IS A WONDERFUL
LADY AND HAS PASSION ON THIS ISSUE ABOUT ASSAULT WEAPONS. SHE
WAS ABLE TO SUCCEED POLITICALLY AFTER 10 YEARS THE BAN EXPIRED AND IT HAS BEEN
HARD TO GET IT REESTABLISHED. SHE INTRODUCED LEGISLATION IN
2013 THAT GOT 60 NO VOTES. 16 DEMOCRATS. I DON’T BELIEVE ACU
AS A THREAT TO THE NATION IF YOU COME OUT ON THE IDEA THAT THE
SECOND AMENDMENT HAS SOME MEANING. IN OTHER WORDS, THE
POLITICAL PROCESS WHEN IT COMES TO GUNS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. I
WOULD RATHER US DECIDE THAT THEN YOU. WHEN IT COMES TO THE KILLER
VIRTUE, CALL ME. CARRIED THAT HE HAS BEEN A SUPPORTING OF
— COMEY THAT HE HAS BEEN A SUPPORTER OF COMEY WITH THE DEEPEST REGRET I SEE
THAT I WAS WRONG. MR. NADLER FROM NEW YORK, THE PRESIDENT CAN
FIRE HIM FOR CAUSE AND OUGHT TO. HE VIOLATED ALL THE GUIDELINES. MR. COHEN CALLED HIM TO RESIGN EFFECTIVE
IMMEDIATELY. I’M SURE IF ON REFLECTION OF THIS ACTION HE
WILL SUBMIT HIS LETTER OF RESIGNATION. TO MY DEMOCRATIC
FRIENDS. YOU ARE ALL FOR GETTING RID OF THIS GUY. NOW ALL THE
SUDDEN THE COUNTRY IS TURNING UPSIDE DOWN BECAUSE TRUMP DID.
THERE IS A PROCESS TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED AND IT IS CALLED
MR. MUELLER AND I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE HE
FINISHES HIS JOB WITHOUT POLITICAL INTERFERENCE. I AM
HERE TO TELL ANYONE IN THE COUNTRY LISTENS THAT THIS IS SO
HYPERCRITICAL OF MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE. WHEN IT WAS
THEIR PRESIDENT KAVANAUGH WAS RIGHT. WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT ROE V.
WADE IT IS OKAY TO PROMISE THE NATION IT WILL NEVER BE
OVERTURNED. IT IS OKAY TO CHOOSE A DEMOCRATIC STAFF MEMBER OF
THIS COMMITTEE, BUT IT IS NOT OKAY TO PICK SOMEONE WHO HAS
BEEN A LIFELONG REPUBLICAN. PEOPLE SEE THROUGH THIS. YOU HAD
A CHANCE AND YOU LOST. IF YOU WANT TO PICK JUDGES FROM YOUR
WAY OF THINKING THEN YOU BETTER WHEN IS AN ELECTION. I VOTED SO
TWO OF YOUR CHOICES . GOT A LOT OF CRAP AND I WOULD
SUGGEST YOU THINK LONG AND HARD IF YOU HAVE A POLITICAL AMBITION
OF VOTING FOR THIS GUY BECAUSE IT WILL NOT PLAY WELL ON YOUR
SIDE. I DID IT BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEY WERE QUALIFIED GIVEN THE
HISTORY OF THE SENATE. WE HAVE TURNED THE HISTORY OF THE SENATE
UPSIDE DOWN. I FOUND THAT THEY WERE DIFFERENT THAN I WOULD HAVE
PICKED, BUT BY ANY REASONABLE MEASURE THEY ARE QUALIFIED. YOU
HAVE BEEN ON THE COURT FOR 12 YEARS, YOU’VE HAD 307 DECISIONS.
YOU HAVE BEEN APPROVED BEFORE AND I HOPE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY
UNDERSTAND THIS GAME. IT IS A GAME THAT I AM SAD TO BE PART OF
. IT HAS GOTTEN REALLY BAD . THE ANTIDOTE TO THE PROBLEMS
IN THIS COUNTRY WHEN IT COMES TO JUDGES AND POLITICS IS NOT TO
DENY YOU A PLACE ON THE SUPREME COURT. THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE YOU
NEED TO BE AND THIS IS EXACTLY THE TIME YOU NEED TO BE THERE
AND I AM TELLING PRESIDENT TRUMP YOU DO SOME THINGS THAT DRIVE ME
CRAZY AND YOU DO SOME GREAT THINGS. YOU HAVE NEVER DONE
ANYTHING BETTER IN MY VIEW INTO SHOES JUST TO SCORE SUCH AND
KAVANAUGH BECAUSE YOU HAD A CHOICE TO PUT OUT QUALIFIED MAN
ON THE COURT THAT MIKE JUDGES ON THE COURT AND YOU KNOCKED IT OUT OF THE
PARK AND TO MY FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU CANNOT LOSE THE
ELECTION AND PICK JUDGES. IF YOU WANT TO PICK JUDGES YOU BETTER
WIN.>>LET ME TELL EVERYBODY WHAT
THE REST OF THE DAY HOLDS. JUDGE KAVANAUGH, YOU CAN TAKE A
BREAK NOW THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR 15 MINUTES AND IT
MAY TAKE 15 MINUTES. WE HAVE TO PUT A DIFFERENT TABLE IN HERE
FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WILL INTRODUCE YOU SO IF YOUR STAFF
WILL WATCH I’D LIKE TO START AS SOON AS THE TABLE IS SET SO WE
WILL TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK AND WE HAVE THE INTRODUCERS AND WE
WILL GIVE THE OATH TO THE NOMINEE AND WE WILL HEAR THE STATEMENT
FROM THE NOMINEE AND WE WILL ADJOURN UNTIL 9:30 TOMORROW
MORNING. TOMORROW MORNING, MY APPROACH IS GOING TO BE THE SAME
FOR THE 30 MINUTES AS IT WOULD BE FOR THE FIVE MINUTES THAT WE
NORMALLY HAVE AND OTHERWISE NORMAL HEARING AND THAT IS THAT
IF YOU GOT ONE SECOND LEFT YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION, BUT DON’T
TAKE ALL DAY TO ASK A QUESTION AND I HOPE YOU CAN GIVE A SHORT
ANSWER IF THERE TIME IS UP THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
PERSON. I WANT TOMORROW NOT TO HAPPEN, IT MAY BE A BETTER SPEAK
TO MYSELF. I’M NOT GOING TO LET HAPPEN TOMORROW WHAT I SHOULD
NOT LET HAPPENED TODAY BECAUSE I’VE BEEN INSTRUCTING PEOPLE
THAT RUN COMMITTEES EITHER YOU RUN IT OR IT RUNS YOU AND YOU
GUYS HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL TODAY IN RUNNING THE COMMITTEE.
IT WON’T HAPPEN TOMORROW. TAKE YOUR TIME OR UNTIL WE GET THE
TABLE SET. RECESS. BY THE COMMITTEE POSITING FOR A FEW MINUTES. STAY WITH US
HERE AT THE WASHINGTON POST AND WE WILL CONTINUE OUR LIFE COVERS
THROUGHOUT THE DAY. I WANT TO GET A SENSE FROM YOU WE NOW KNOW WHAT SENATORS WILL ASK THE
JUDICIAL NOMINEE TOMORROW. HAVE YOU GOTTEN A CLEAR INDICATION AS
TO WHERE THEY’RE QUESTIONING AND GRILLING OF JUDGE KAVANAUGH WILL
GO? >>IT FALLS ALONG PARTISAN LINES
FOR THE MOST PART. REPUBLICANS, I THINK IT SOUNDS
LIKE THEY WILL ASK QUESTIONS THAT MAKE HIM SOUND LIKE A
CREDIBLE NOMINEE THAT ALL OF THIS PARTISAN IS JUST THAT IT IS
PARTISAN AND WITHOUT BASIS. HE WILL BE A VERY GOOD SUPREME COURT. LINDSEY GRAHAM
FROM SOUTH CAROLINA JAKE TRUMP SUPPORTER SAID SOMETHING THAT I
THOUGHT REPUBLICANS WOULD EXPECT THE HIGHLIGHT, THIS IS A GAME
I’M SAD TO BE A PART OF THAT HAS GOTTEN REALLY BAD AND TO TRUMP,
YOU’VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING BETTER AND TO THESE TWO FOUR THE
SUPREME COURT. I HEAR REPUBLICANS WANT TO BE A
DISSENTER AND A PROTECTOR OF CAVANAUGH TOMORROW.
>>– KAVANAUGH TOMORROW. >>>WE MAY SEE THEM DIVIDED UP
INTO CERTAIN SENATORS GO AFTER CERTAIN TOPICS AND TRIED TO GET
A FULL BACK AND FORTH.>>I THINK IT IS ALMOST REALLY
HOW MUCH DEMOCRATS WANT TO DO THAT AND HE WILL DO A GOOD JOB OF DUCKING
AS MUCH AS HE CAN. A FEW THINGS I EXPECT DEMOCRATS
TO FOCUS ON OUR SOCIAL ISSUES BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE KAVANAUGH
COULD MAKE THE BIGGEST ISSUE DIFFERENCE AND THE RULE OF LAW
AS IT PERTAINS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP. DEMOCRATS IN THERE
OPENING STATEMENTS ARGUED THAT WE SHOULD BE VERY SKEPTICAL OF
KAVANAUGH NOT BECAUSE OF WHO HE HAS BUT BECAUSE HE WAS CHOSEN
BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. A PRESIDENT THAT IS FULLY AWARE
THAT THE SUPREME COURT MIGHT DECIDE WHETHER HE HAS TO SIT
DOWN WITH A SPECIAL COUNSEL IN THE INTERFERENCE INVESTIGATION
WHICH MIGHT DECIDE HIS FATE IN THAT INVESTIGATION IS A BIG DEAL
AND DEMOCRATS ARE ARGUING TRUMP WENT
BACK THROUGH THE WRITINGS OF HIM AND CHOSE SOMEONE WHO HE THOUGHT
WOULD BE PRESIDENT — FRIENDLY TO HIM.
>>A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT EXECUTIVE POWER AND THE EXTENT
OF IT AND WHAT THE LIMITS SHOULD BE IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE OF
FOCUS. I HEARD FROM TO MAKE AND ATTACHMENT TWO WHILE THEY WERE
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE NOMINEE THEY DID RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS BEHAVIOR. HOW FAR DID THEY GO
AND HOW SIGNIFICANT IS THAT?>>IN TERMS OF THEM VOTING
AGAINST I DON’T SEE THAT HAPPENING. IT IS POLITICALLY SIGNIFICANT
EVEN IF IT WON’T CHANGE THE RESULTS. THIS VERY PARTISAN
COMMITTEE CRITICIZING SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT DID JUST THIS
WEEKEND AND BRINGING UP THESE POLITICAL NEWS STORIES THAT
EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT AND PLOPPING THEM RIGHT INTO THE
MIDDLE.>>TAKING PRESIDENT TRUMP OFFICE
OWN TWEETS AND REPUBLICANS SAYING IT IS ULTIMATELY HURTING JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S APPEARANCE AND
MEDDLING THIS PROCESS. >>I THINK WHEN HE WAS TWEETING
AND I’M SUMMARIZING THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHOULDN’T
INVESTIGATE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IS CLOSE TO AN
ELECTION HE WASN’T DOING KAVANAUGH ANY FAVORS BECAUSE
THAT OPEN THE DOOR FOR THESE TRUMP CRITICS ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE TO HAVE A VERY REAL REASON TO CRITICIZE THE PRESIDENT
WHEREAS MAYBE IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT
HAPPENED MONTHS AGO THEY COULD HAVE NOT BROUGHT IT UP OR FELT
LIKE THEY DIDN’T NEED TO BRING IT UP.
>>WE HEARD RIGHT UNTIL THE END DEMOCRATS CALLING TO MORE ACCESS
TO HIS HISTORY AND LET’S LISTEN TO HOW
DEMOCRATS FOUGHT FOR THIS AND TO NO AVAIL ULTIMATE LIST POINT.
>>TO SERVE AS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE-
>>I WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR RATIONING. THE COMMITTEE
RECEIVED LAST NIGHT LESS THAN 15 HOURS AGO PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE
NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW.
>>I AGREE WITH SENATOR HARRIS. >>IF WE CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED I
REQUEST WE BE ADJOURNED.>>REGULAR ORDER IS CALLED FOR.
>>THIS HAS TURNED IT INTO A RAID.
>>ON YOUR SENSE OF DECENCY AND
INTEGRITY YOU SPOKE ABOUT MY DECENCY AND INTEGRITY.
>>I THINK YOU ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MY DECENCY AND
INTEGRITY.>>ON THE INTEGRITY WE HAVE
RECEIVED THERE REALLY IS NO INTEGRITY. HAVE ALTERATIONS AND
EMAILS ARE CUT OFF HALFWAY THROUGH AND RECIPIENTS NAMES ARE
MISSING. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY 44 YEARS TO HAVE SOMEONE SAY THERE IS A CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT MADE SUCH A CLAIM JUST PUTS
EVERYTHING UNDER DOUBT. >>IT IS STRIKING GIVING YOUR
LONG HISTORY OF ENCOURAGING THE BRANCH TO TREAT MINORITY EQUAL
TO MAJORITY THAT YOU DISCOURAGE THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES FROM
RESPONDING TO RANKING MEMBER REQUEST WHICH SHE TRIED TO CRAFT
WITH YOU TO BE IDENTICAL TO THE REQUEST FROM JUSTICE KAGAN. WE SHOULD NOT BE PROCEEDING
UNTIL WE HAVE FULL DOCUMENTS THAT ALLOW US TO REVIEW THE
RECORDS. BUCKING USING YOUR OWN WORDS THAT YOU JUST READ YOU
SAID I’VE HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS. WE
JUST GOT A DOCUMENT DUMP LAST NIGHT OVER 40,000 PAGES. I WOULD
VENTURE TO SAY NOT ONE SENATORS HERE HAS REVIEWED THOSE 40,000
PAGES.>>WE WAITED FOR MORE THAN A
YEAR WITH A VACANCY IN THE DIRECTION OF YOUR LEADER IN THE
UNITED STATES AND THE REPUBLIC SURVIVED. I THINK THE TREATMENT
WAS SHABBY . THE FACT THAT WE CANNOT TAKE A
FEW DAYS OR WEEKS TO HAVE A COMPLETE REVIEW OF HIS RECORD IS UNFAIR TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE. >>LAST NIGHT BEFORE 11:00 ON
THE 42,000 PAGES THAT HAVE COME TO OUR ATTENTION THE STAFF ON
THE REPUBLICAN SIDE HAS GONE THROUGH THAT.
>>WHY DID YOU ASK FOR THE COUNCIL DOCUMENT? THEY WERE NOT
GERMANE. >>FOR THE RECORD THAT IS A RATE OF
7000 PAGES PER HOUR. THAT IS SUPERHUMAN. CALLING IT
SUPERHUMAN TO GO THROUGH THOSE DOCUMENTS. DID THEY MAKE ANY
PROGRESS GETTING ACCESS TO THESE?
>>NO. PERHAPS IN THE ARGUMENT AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE OF WHETHER
THIS WAS FAIR NOT TO HOLD THIS HEARING WITHOUT THE DOCUMENTS
BEING OUT THERE, WE WILL SEE. I THINK THEY MADE SOME ARGUMENTS
ABOUT HOW QUICKLY PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO READ 42,000 PAGE
DOCUMENTS THAT HAPPENED LAST NIGHT. AT THE END OF THE DAY
REPUBLICANS CONTROL THIS PROCESS BECAUSE THEY CONTROL THE
MAJORITY AND THEY GET TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY ARE DOCUMENTS ARE
NOT. LET’S GO TO OUR REPORTER WHO HAS BEEN INSIDE THE CHAMBER
FOR YOU WITH US? I WANTED TO ASK YOU WHAT IT IS
UNLIKE IN THE ROOM. WE HAVE SEEN THESE PROTESTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT AND HOW HAS IT IMPACT THE
HEARING?>>Reporter: IT HAS BEEN
REMARKABLE. HAS BEEN A SUSTAINED SERIES OF THESE PROTESTS
THROUGHOUT THE HEARING. THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR ROWS OPEN TO
THE PUBLIC AND IS MOSTLY YOUNG WOMEN, TEACHERS SAYING I AM
STANDING UP TAKING TURNS SAYING STOP THESE HEARINGS. MY
ABORTION-RIGHTS, MY VOTING RIGHTS ARE AT ISSUE HERE AND
GETTING QUIETLY PULLED OUT OF THE HEARING ROOM. I THOUGHT MAYBE THIS IS GOING TO
BE AT THE BEGINNING, BUT IT CONTINUED THROUGHOUT
PARTICULARLY WHEN REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN SPEAK.
>>WHAT STOOD OUT TO YOU FROM THE OPENING STATEMENTS IN TERMS
OF MESSAGES AND WHO WAS DELIVERING THE MOST POWERFUL MESSAGES OF
THE ONES THAT MADE IMPACT THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS AND MARK I GUESS THE DEMOCRAT DELAY
TACTICS WERE ONE PART OF THE HEARING AND I WAS ALSO SURPRISED
TO SEE TWO REPUBLICAN SENATORS OPENLY CRITICIZE PRESIDENT TRUMP
OFFICE TWEETS FROM YESTERDAY TALKING TO THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS AND THE RECENT
INDICTMENT OF REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN. THEY SAID WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT
THIS AND WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU ABOUT THE LIMITS OF
PRESIDENTIAL POWER AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS SURPRISING.
>>THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US. SHE HAS BEEN COVERING
THIS INSIDE. WE WILL GET BACK UNDERWAY IN A FEW MOMENTS AS
THEY SETTLE BACK DOWN AND WE WILL HEAR INTRODUCTORY
STATEMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS NOMINEE
MAINLY CONDOLEEZZA RICE. A PROMINENT FIGURE IN THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION. SENATOR PORTMAN WILL INTRODUCE BEFORE HIS
COLLEAGUES AND LAWYER LISA BLACK WHO HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED AS A LIBERAL LAWYER WHO DESPITE DIFFERENCES IN
POLITICAL VALUES IS SUPPORTING THIS NOMINEE AND
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE OFTEN SEE HAPPEN WHEN THEY COME BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE. SOMEONE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE MIGHT
COME ALONG TO BACK THEM UP IN THIS PUBLIC SETTING AND THEN WE
WILL HEAR FROM THE MAN HIMSELF AND HE WILL DELIVER HIS OPENING
STATEMENT FOR THIS COMMITTEE AND ISAAC FOR THE DAY. WE COME BACK TOMORROW MORNING AT
9:30. SAME TIME AS THIS MORNING AND AT THAT POINT WE EXPECT TO
HEAR THEM GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE NOMINEE. THERE
CONDOLEEZZA RICE. THINGS WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR.
>>THE INTRODUCTIONS WILL BE STATED
WE ALL KNOW THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING BROUGHT OUT TO SUPPORT
HIM. CONDOLEEZZA RICE IS INTERESTING AND THAT SHE IS, SHE
SERVED WITH HIM IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND HIS TIME IN
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS CONTROVERSIAL AND THAT THERE ARE
DOCUMENTS THE DEMOCRATS POINT OUT WE DON’T HAVE.
>>A LOT ASKED FOR THOSE.>>ESPECIALLY SHE IS POST-9/11, I CAN’T WAIT TO HEAR FROM THE
JUDGE. HE HAS SAT THROUGH A LOT. LET’S GO BACK.>>WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SENATOR PORTMAN AND LISA BLACK TO
INTRODUCE THE NOMINEE. WE WILL NOW START WITH CONDOLEEZZA RICE.
>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY, SENATOR
FEINSTEIN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I AM REALLY HONORED
TO JOIN IN INTRODUCING BRETT KAVANAUGH FOR THE JUSTICE. MY
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JUDGE KAVANAUGH GOES BACK 17
YEARS TO OUR TIME AS WHITE HOUSE COLLEAGUES IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF GEORGE W. BUSH. THOSE WERE REMARKABLE
TIMES AND I LOVED SERVING. THEY WERE HOWEVER NOT EASY TIMES. THE
GUIDANCE AND COUNSEL WAS A JOY AND A BLESSING. I AM SO GRATEFUL
TO HAVE HAD HIM AS A COLLEAGUE. HE WAS ALWAYS SUPPORTIVE AND STRONG AND CARING AND
SOMEONE WHOSE INTEGRITY AND GOOD I VALUED ENORMOUSLY. I KNEW HIM
EARLY IN HIS YEARS I WAS THERE WHEN HE MARRIED ASHLEY. I
REMEMBER THE BIRTH OF HIS CHILDREN. IS A GREAT FATHER AND
HUSBAND SON. IN SHORT, HE IS A VERY GOOD HUMAN BEING. SINCE THE
NOMINATION I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REFLECT BACK ON THOSE TIMES AND
WHAT MY EXPERIENCE TELLS ME ABOUT BRETT IN THIS CRUCIAL ROLE. MANY
HAVE GIVEN TESTIMONY TO HIS EXTRAORDINARY LEGAL MIND , THE
DEPTH OF HIS EXPERIENCE, HIS INTELLECT AND GOOD COMMON SENSE.
YOU HAVE HEARD AND YOU WILL HEAR FROM CLERKS AND OTHER GREAT
LEGAL THINKERS AS WELL AS COLLEAGUES FROM THROUGHOUT HIS
CAREER. I DO NOT NEED TO REPEAT THEIR PRAISE ONLY TO SAY THAT I
KNOW FIRSTHAND THAT SHE IS REALLY SMART. HERE IS THE BRETT KAVANAUGH THAT I KNOW, HE
IS HARD-WORKING, HE HAS A SENSE OF HUMOR, HE SEEKS , THERE IS NO
DETAIL TOO SMALL TO GAIN HIS ATTENTION , HE MAKES THOSE AROUND HIM
BETTER. HE IS WISE, HE IS AN OLD SOUL WHO IS MADE TO HELP STEADY
US IN THESE COMPLICATED TIMES. BRETT LISTENS ESPECIALLY WITH
THOSE HE DISAGREES AND IN OUR CHARGED ENVIRONMENT WHEN WE HAVE
BECOME ALMOST TRIBAL LIVING IN ECHO CHAMBERS AND
OFTEN FINDING COMFORT IN THE COMPANY OF ONLY THOSE WHOM WE
AGREE, THIS IS AN INDISPENSABLE QUALITY FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF SUPREME COURT. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE BETTER IF HE HAD
GONE TO THE SAME COLLEGE THAT HIS MENTOR WENT TO AND THAT
IS STANFORD. I HAVE TO SAY YELL HAS DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB. IN
RECENT WEEKS WE HAVE ALSO HAD THE CHANCE TO REFLECT ON OUR
CONSTITUTION. THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF AND THE
TRUST WE PLACE IN THE JUSTICES OF. AS A SCHOLAR AND A DIPLOMAT
I HAVE WATCHED THE STRUGGLE OF PEOPLE ACROSS THE WORLD WHO
ACHIEVE DEMOCRACY AND KEEP IT. EVERY DAY THEY BALANCE PRIORITIES BETWEEN
THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. THEY CONSTRUCTED
INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOLARS OFTEN OF THE AMERICAN SPIRIT OF
CONSTITUTIONAL. WE AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS
OUR PERSONAL PROTECTION. WE TAKE OUR RIGHTS VERY SERIOUSLY AND WE
WILL GO ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT IF WE THINK THOSE
RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. A DEMOCRACY IS ONLY STABLE WHEN
THERE IS THAT KIND OF TRUST IN THE INSTITUTION. A BELIEF THAT
THOSE INSTITUTIONS WILL BE FAIR AND JUST AND SECURE THE RIGHTS
OF CITIZENS. THE STRENGTH OF THE AMERICAN
INSTITUTION IS A CAUSE FOR OPTIMISM AND IT CANNOT BE TAKEN
FOR GRANTED. THE SUPREME COURT SPECIAL ROLE IN PROTECTING THE
CAREFUL BALANCES OF THE CONSTITUTION SEEKS TO ACHIEVE IS
CRUCIAL TO OUR DEMOCRATIC STABILITY. THIS IS TRUE EVEN AS TIMES HAVE
CHANGED AND IT IS MORE IMPORTANT WITH EVERY PASSING YEAR IN THE
INCREASINGLY COMPLICATED NATION. AS A LITTLE GIRL BORN IN
SEGREGATED BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA WHO GREW UP TO BE SECRETARY OF
STATE I KNOW PERSONALLY OUR COUNTRY’S LONG JOURNEY TO
GUARANTEE EQUAL RIGHTS. I KNOW THE POWER OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND I KNOW THE GIFT OF OUR DEMOCRACY. THE SUPREME COURT IS
A CRUCIAL GUARDIAN BOTH OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR
DEMOCRACY. THAT IS WHY I AM SO HONORED TO INTRODUCE BRETT
KAVANAUGH AT THESE HEARINGS. HE WILL BE AN OUTSTANDING SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE. HIS INTELLECT IS UNQUESTIONED, HIS JUDGMENT IS
HIGHLY REGARDED. I CAN PERSONALLY ATTEST TO HIS
CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY AS A COFFEE. BRETT KAVANAUGH WILL
THOROUGHLY AND FAITHFULLY UPHOLD THE TRUST THAT IS OUR HERITAGE.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE MOST
REMARKABLE GOVERNING DOCUMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY. THANK YOU. OKAY
THANK YOU. HELP SENATOR PORTMAN. CHAIRMAN GRASSLEY, RANKING
MEMBER FEINSTEIN AND COLLEAGUES ON THIS COMMITTEE ON THE
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC SIDE, IT IS A PRIVILEGE TO JOIN THIS
AFTERNOON INTRODUCING A FRIEND, JUDGE KAVANAUGH.
>>I HAVE KNOWN BRETT AND HIS WIFE ASHLEY BEFORE THEY WERE
MARRIED AND I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH HIM IN THE GEORGE
W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE. AS SECRETARY RICE HAS SAID VERY
WELL THOSE OF US WHO WORKED WITH HIM UNIVERSALLY PRAISED HIS WORK
ETHIC, HIS INTELLIGENCE AND HIS INTEGRITY. I VISITED WITH GEORGE
W. BUSH A FEW DAYS AGO AND WE TALKED ABOUT BRETT AND HE PUT IT
SIMPLY, BRETT KAVANAUGH IS A CLASS ACT. IN ENDORSING HIM
FORMER LAWYER TO PRESIDENT CLINTON BOB BENNETT CALLED HIM A
STRONG ADVOCATE OF DECENCY AND CIVILITY AND BY THE WAY OF ALL THE
ATTRIBUTES YOU LOOK FOR IN JUDGE WHAT COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT
THAN GOOD JUDGMENT RUSSIAN MARK BRETT SHOWED GOOD JUDGMENT
MARRIED ASHLEY AND SO DID SHE AND THEY ARE GREAT FAMILY. WE
HAVE THEIR DAUGHTERS WITH US HERE TODAY. HIS PARENTS EDWARD
AND MARTHA ARE ALSO HERE. THAT IS ESPECIALLY APPROPRIATE SINCE
HIS FIRST INTRODUCTION OF THE LAW CAME FROM LISTENING TO HIS
MOM PRACTICE HOLDING ARGUMENTS AT THE DINNER TABLE. SHE WAS A
TRAILBLAZER. SHE WENT TO LAW SCHOOL AT 34 AND BECAME A TRIAL
JUDGE. MARTHA WILL ALWAYS BE THE TRUE JUDGE KAVANAUGH. DURING THE PROCESS OF THE
HEARING THERE WILL BE MORE SPIRITED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HIS
LEGAL PHILOSOPHY AND HIS EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUND AS A
LAWYER AND JUDGE. I HEARD QUITE A BIT OF IT TODAY AND THERE
SHOULD BE THIS DISCUSSION. THIS IS ABOUT A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT
TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND. IN MY VIEW THERE IS NOT A
BETTER QUALIFIED PERSON TO BE ON THAT COURT. JUST LAST FRIDAY THE AMERICAN
BAR ASSOCIATION GAVE HIM A UNANIMOUS WELL-QUALIFIED RATING
WHICH IS THE HIGHEST RATING THEY OFFER UNANIMOUS. I SAW HOW HE CONDUCTED HIMSELF
IN THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL OFFICE I HAVE WATCHED HIM FOR THE PAST
12 YEARS ON THE CIRCUIT WHERE HE HAS BEEN PRAISED AS FAIR, SMART,
INDEPENDENT. HE HAS AUTHORED MORE THAN 300
PUBLIC OPINIONS AND THE SUPREME COURT ADOPTED HIS RECENT —
REASONING 13 TIMES A TESTAMENT TO HIS THOUGHTFUL AND WELL
REASONED DECISION AND A RECORD FEW IF ANY OTHER APPELLATE
JUDGES CAN MATCH. AGAIN, NO ONE MORE QUALIFIED. FOR MORE THAN A
DECADE HE HAS TAUGHT CLASSES. HE IS A WELL-RESPECTED JUDGE AND A
WELL-RESPECTED PROFESSOR AND A LEADER AMONG HIS PEERS. THAT IS
WHY SO MANY FORMER STUDENTS, HIS LAW CLERKS, HIS JUDICIAL
COLLEAGUES AND LEGAL SCHOLARS, BY THE WAY, FROM ACROSS THE
POLITICAL SPECTRUM HAVE COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF HIS NOMINATION. HE IS GUIDED BY THE CONSTITUTION
AND THE RULE OF LAW. HE HAS SAID IT IS TO INTERPRET THE LAW NOT
MAKE LAW OR INTERPRET POLICY AND I AGREE
AS DO MOST OF THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT. THEY SHOULDN’T BE
LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. CLEARLY, HE HAS THE RIGHT
QUALIFICATIONS AND HE HAS A JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY THAT IS VERY
MUCH IN THE MAINSTREAM. JUST AS IMPORTANT TO ME IS THE
KIND OF PERSON YOU WANT ON THE SUPREME COURT. I HAVE KNOWN
BRETT AS A FRIEND, A FATHER AND A HUSBAND. HE IS THOUGHTFUL AND
COMPASSIONATE AND SOMEONE WHO HAS A BIG HEART AND THE HUMILITY
TO LISTEN AND TO ME THAT MIGHT BE THE MOST SINGLE IMPORTANT
ATTRIBUTE. THE HUMILITY TO LISTEN. I HOPE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE CAME TO MY OFFICE TO DISCUSS HIS
CONFIRMATION. HE WENT STRAIGHT FROM OUR
MEETING TO SERVE DINNER TO THE HOMELESS THROUGH HIS CHURCH A
REGULAR OCCURRENCE SCHEDULED LONG BEFORE HIS NOMINATION. I
ONLY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT BECAUSE THAT NIGHT SOMEONE RECOGNIZED
HIM AND TOOK A PHOTO THAT GOT TWEETED AND IT WAS A PHOTO OF
HIM IN A BASEBALL CAP IN THE SOUP KITCHEN. IT IS CLASSIC THAT
HE DIDN’T TELL ME THIS WAS WHERE HE WAS GOING AFTER MEETING WITH
ME. TO MY COLLEAGUES I KNOW THE MAN. HE DOES THINGS BECAUSE IT
IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. HE IS ALSO INVOLVED TO SOME OF YOU
KNOW AND HIS DAUGHTER’S SPORTS TEAM. LAST YEAR MARGARET’S TEAM
HAD AN UNDEFEATED SEASON AND WENT ON TO IN A CITYWIDE
CHAMPIONSHIP. WAY TO GO MARKET. TO SHOW YOU WHERE HIS PRIORITIES
ARE COACH K AS HE IS KNOWN BY THE PLAYERS HAS A TEAM
PHOTOGRAPH AND TROPHY DISPLAYED IN HIS CHAMBERS. JULIE O’BRIEN
WHO GOES TO SCHOOL WITH MARGARET HAS ANOTHER TELLING STORY ABOUT
HIM. A FEW YEARS AGO HER HUSBAND PASSED AWAY AND WITH NO ONE TO
ACCOMPANY HER DAUGHTER TO THE ANNUAL FATHER DAUGHTER DANCE
BRETT STEPPED UP. THAT YEAR AND EVERY YEAR SINCE HE HAS TAKEN
HER DAUGHTER ALONGSIDE HIS OWN TO THE DANCE. THAT IS THE KIND
OF PERSON HE IS. THAT IS THE BRETT KAVANAUGH I KNOW. I AM
PROUD TO INTRODUCE BRETT KAVANAUGH BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE
AND I’M PROUD TO STRONGLY SUPPORT HIS NOMINATION TO BE THE
NEXT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. I
KNOW THESE ARE PARTISAN TIMES, BUT THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY
NOMINEE IN EVERY RESPECT. BASED ON HIS RECORD, HIS
QUALIFICATIONS, AND HIS CHARACTER I BELIEVE HE DESERVES
BROAD SUPPORT . MY HOPE IS THAT AS WAS THE
CASE WITH OTHER JUSTICES THIS COMMITTEE WILL REPORT HIS NOMINATION FAVORABLY AND THE
FULL SENATE WILL CONFIRM HIM WITH A STRONG BIPARTISAN VOTE
THAT HE DESERVES. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU.>>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. IT IS A PRIVILEGE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU
TODAY. MY NAME IS LISA BLATT. I AM A
LIBERAL DEMOCRAT AND AN UNAPOLOGETIC DEFENDER OF A
WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. MY HERO IS JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG
FOR WHOM I HAD THE GREAT FORTUNE OF SERVING AS A LAW. I PROBABLY
VOTED FOR HILLARY CLINTON, I VOTED FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA TWICE
AND WITH MY APOLOGIES, MR. CHAIRMAN FOR THIS ONE I WISH
SENATOR FEINSTEIN WERE CHEERING THIS COMMITTEE. AND YET I AM
HERE TODAY TO INTRODUCE JUDGE KAVANAUGH AND URGE YOU TO
CONFIRM HIM. I HAVE RECEIVED MANY ANGRY CALLS FROM FRIENDS
AND STRANGERS FOR SUPPORTING JUDGE KAVANAUGH. I WAS RAISED TO
CALL IT LIKE I SEE IT AND I DON’T SEE THE CHOICE BEFORE YOU
AS DIFFICULT. BY AN EFFECTIVE MEASURE JUDGE KAVANAUGH IS
CLEARLY QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON THE SUPREME COURT. HE CLERKED
FOR ANTHONY KENNEDY JUSTICE HE WILL SUCCEED. HE SPENT 12 YEARS
ON THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIRCUIT. HIS OPINIONS ARE INVARIABLY THOUGHTFUL AND FAIR
AND MANY ARE KNOWN AS INSTANT CLASSICS. NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY
ARE IMPORTANT, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE WRITTEN SO CLEARLY AND WELL.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS ADOPTED THE REASONING AND HIS OPINIONS
MORE THAN A DOZEN TIMES. JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S INTEGRITY IS
FLAWLESS. HE HAS METICULOUSLY PREPARED AND TREATS LITIGANTS
WITH RESPECT ASKING PROBING QUESTIONS OF BOTH SIDES. HE
APPROACHES JUDGING BY DETERMINING WHAT THE LAW
REQUIRES NO MATTER HIS PERSONAL PREFERENCE. HE HAS TAUGHT AT THE
NATION’S CAPITAL SCHOOL, PUBLISHED THE LAW REVIEW
ARTICLES. THE ABA STRONGLY ENDORSED HIM
BECAUSE HE MEETS THE VERY HIGHEST STANDARDS OF INTEGRITY,
PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE AND JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT. ON A
PERSONAL LEVEL, I CAN’T SAY ENOUGH NICE THINGS ABOUT THE
JUDGE. I FIRST MET HIM ALMOST 10 YEARS AGO WHEN HE EMAILED ME
COMPLETELY OUT OF THE BLUE TO SAY SHE LIKED AN ARTICLE I HAD
WRITTEN ABOUT ARGUING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. SINCE THEN WE
HAVE BECOME FRIENDS AND HE HAS BECOME A MENTOR TO ME AND MY
CAREER. JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS LISTENING
TO ME TALK ABOUT THE CHALLENGES I HAVE FACED AS A WORKING
MOTHER IN A PROFESSION DOMINATED BY MEN. HE HAS BEEN A GREAT
SOURCE OF ADVICE ON THESE AND MANY OTHER ISSUES ABOUT WORK
LIFE BALANCE. HE UNDERSTANDS THAT LIFE IS NOT ALWAYS PERFECT
AND HE RESPONDS TO THE CHALLENGES WITH A
SELF-DEPRECATING SENSE OF HUMOR. MORE GENERALLY JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAS BEEN
COMMITTED TO PROMOTING WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION. MORE THAN
HALF OF HIS LAW CLERKS HAVE BEEN WOMEN, SOMETHING THAT IS NOT
COMMON AND MOST ALL OF HIS CLERKS WOMEN AND MEN HAVE GONE
ON TO CLERK AT THE SUPREME COURT AS THEY TOLD THE COMMITTEE THE
LEGAL PROFESSION IS FAIR AND MORE EQUAL BECAUSE OF JUDGE
KAVANAUGH. HE HAS MENTORED COUNTLESS OTHER WOMEN THROUGH
THE CLASSES HE TEACHES AT YALE AND HARVARD. OBVIOUSLY I KNOW
THAT HE IS A CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL OUTLOOK AND IF HE IS
CONFIRMED HE WILL HAVE ONE OF NINE VOTES TO DEFINITIVELY
DECIDE THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDING JUST HOW
FAR TO READ IT TO PROTECT THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS OF WOMEN. IF
IT WERE UP TO ME JUSTICE GINSBURG WOULD HAVE ALL NINE
VOTES, BUT THAT IS NOT OUR SYSTEM AND THE REALITY IS THE
PRESIDENCY AND THE SENATE ARE IN REPUBLICAN HANDS. JUDGE
KAVANAUGH IS THE BEST CHOICE THAT LIBERALS COULD REASONABLY
HOPE FOR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I AM SURE THAT SOME MEMBERS OF THE
SENATE KNEW THEY WOULD DISAGREE WITH JUSTICE GINSBURG LEGAL VIEWS AND
SHE WAS A NOMINEE, BUT SHE WAS CONFIRMED 96-3. THIS BODY HAS
TREATED SOME NOMINEES DIFFERENTLY SINCE THEN TO THE
DETRIMENT OF OUR COURTS. I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE
TREATMENT OF GARLAND. JUDGE KAVANAUGH SPOKE GLOWINGLY
OF JUDGE GARLAND DURING HIS PENDING NOMINATION STATING THAT CHIEF JUDGE GARLAND IS A
BRILLIANT GENEROUS THOUGHTFUL, CONSIDERATE, COLLEGIAL AND HE
WORKS WELL WITH OTHERS. A GOOD MAN, GREAT INTEGRITY AND
SUPREMELY QUALIFIED BY EXPERIENCE, SCHOLARLY ABILITIES.
ALL OF THIS IS EQUALLY TRUE OF JUDGE CAVANAUGH. I DO NOT THINK
IT IS FAIR TO HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FACT THAT
GARLAND IS NOT A JUSTICE TODAY. INSTEAD, I WOULD URGE THIS
COMMITTEE TO TREAT HIM AS WE EXPECT HIM TO TREAT LITIGANTS
THAT APPEAR BEFORE HIM. ON HIS OWN MERITS AND WITH AN OPEN MIND
TOWARD SOMEONE WHOSE VIEWS MAY DIFFER FROM OUR OWN. OUR SYSTEM
IS NOT WELL SERVED BY [ NULL ]-FOR-TAT POLITICS. AT THE END OF THE DAY I
ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORT CAVANAUGH I’M PROUD TO INTRODUCE
HIM BECAUSE HE IS UNQUESTIONABLY QUALIFIED BY HIS EXTRAORDINARY
INTELLECT, EXPERIENCE AND TEMPERAMENT AND HE DOES EASILY
FIT WITHIN THE MAINSTREAM OF LEGAL THOUGHT. I LOOK FORWARD TO
THE COMMITTEE OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS GETTING TO KNOW THE JUDGE
KAVANAUGH THAT I KNOW AND AT THE END OF THAT PROCESS I HOPE
YOU WILL AGREE HE SHOULD BE CONFIRMED TO SUCCEED HIS FORMER
BOSS ON THE SUPREME COURT.>>THANK YOU TO EACH OF THE
PANEL FOR THEIR INTRODUCTION AND YOU ARE DISMISSED AND JUDGE
KAVANAUGH CAN YOU SHAKE YOUR HEAD I WAS TOLD THAT YOU MIGHT
WANT FIVE MINUTES RIGHT NOW. YOU NEED THAT? OKAY. JUST STAY SEATED UNTIL WE CHANGE
THE TABLE AND WE WILL GET TO YOU.>>JUDGE KAVANAUGH, DO YOU SWEAR
THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GET BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE
WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH
SO HELP YOU GOD? >>I DO.
>>THANK YOU. PROCEED WITH YOUR STATEMENT OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU
WANT TO TELL THE COMMITTEE. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHARIMAN, SENATOR
FEINSTEIN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE , I THINK SECRETARY
RICE, CENTER DEPARTMENT AND I’M HUMBLED BY THEIR CONFIDENCE,
I AM PROUD TO CALL EACH OF THEM A FRIEND. OVER THE PAST EIGHT
WEEKS I HAVE WITNESSED FIRSTHAND THE SENATE’S DEEP APPRECIATION
FOR THE VITAL ROLE OF THE AMERICAN JUDICIARY. I HAVE MET
WITH 65 SENATORS INCLUDING ALMOST EVERY MEMBER OF THIS
COMMITTEE. THOSE MEETINGS ARE SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS COURTESY CALL, BUT THAT TERM
UNDERSTATES HOW SENSITIVE AND PERSONAL OUR DISCUSSIONS HAVE
BEEN. I HAVE GREATLY ENJOYED ALL 65 MEETINGS AND IN LISTENING TO ALL OF YOU I
HAVE LEARNED MORE ABOUT OUR COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE YOU REPRESENT.
EVERY SENATOR IS DEVOTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE PUBLIC
GOOD AND I THANK ALL OF YOU. I THANK PRESIDENT TRUMP. I WAS
DEEPLY IMPRESSED BY HIS CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE NOMINATION
PROCESS AND BY HIS THOROUGH CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL
NOMINEES. I AM ALSO VERY GRATEFUL FOR IS COURTESY THAT THE WHITE HOUSE ON THE
NIGHT OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT, THE PRESIDENT AND MRS. TRUMP WERE
VERY GRACIOUS TO MY DAUGHTERS, MY WIFE AND MY PARENTS. MY
FAMILY ALWAYS WILL CHERISH THAT NIGHT OR AS MY DAUGHTER CALLS IT
HER DEBUT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. AS A NOMINEE TO THE SUPREME
COURT I UNDERSTAND THE RESPONSIBILITY I BEAR. SOME 30
YEARS AGO JUDGE ANTHONY KENNEDY SET IN THIS SEAT AND HE BECAME ONE OF THE MOST
CONSEQUENTIAL JUSTICES IN AMERICAN HISTORY. I SERVED AS
HIS LAW CLERK IN 1993. TO ME JUSTICE KENNEDY IS A MENTOR, A
FRIEND AND A HERO. AS A MEMBER OF THE COURT HE WAS A MODEL OF
CIVILITY AND COLLEGIALITY . HE FIERCELY DEFENDED THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY AND HE WAS A CHAMPION OF
LIBERTY. IF YOU HAD TO SUM UP HIS ENTIRE CAREER IN ONE WORD
LIBERTY. JUSTICE KENNEDY ESTABLISHED THE LEGACY OF
LIBERTY FOR OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY. I AM HERE TODAY WITH ANOTHER OF
MY JUDICIAL HEROES, MY MOM. 50 YEARS AGO THIS WEEK IN SEPTEMBER
1968 MY MOM WAS 26 AND I WAS THREE. AT THAT POINT MY MOM
STARTED AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER AT THE HIGH SCHOOL HERE
IN WASHINGTON DC. 1968 WAS A DIFFICULT TIME FOR
RACE RELATIONS IN OUR CITY AND OUR COUNTRY. McKINLEY TECH HAD
AN ALMOST ENTIRELY AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENT BODY . IT WAS EAST OF THE PARK. I
VIVIDLY REMEMBER DAYS AS A YOUNG BOY SITTING IN THE BACK OF HER
CLASSROOM AS SHE TAUGHT AMERICAN HISTORY TO A CLASS OF AMERICAN
AMERICAN TEENAGERS. HER STUDENTS WERE BORN BEFORE BROWN VERSUS BOARD OF EDUCATION.
BY HER EXAMPLE MY MOM TAUGHT ME THE IMPORTANCE OF EQUALITY FOR
ALL-AMERICAN. EQUAL RIGHTS, EQUAL DIGNITY AND EQUAL JUSTICE
UNDER LAW. MY MOM WAS A TRAILBLAZER WHEN I
WAS 10, SHE WENT TO LAW SCHOOL AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITY AND
BECAME A PROSECUTOR. I AM AN ONLY CHILD AND MY INTRODUCTION
TO LAW CAME AT OUR DINNER TABLE WHEN SHE PRACTICED HER CLOSING
ARGUMENTS ON MY DAD AND ME. HER TRADEMARK LINE WAS USE YOUR
COMMON SENSE, WHAT RINGS TRUE ? WHAT RINGS FALSE?, ONE OF THE
FEW WOMEN PROSECUTORS AT THE TIME
OVERCAME BARRIERS AND WAS LATER APPOINTED BY DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNORS TO SERVE AS A MARYLAND STATE TRIAL JUDGE. OUR FEDERAL
AND STATE TRIAL JUDGES SERVE ON THE FRONT LINES OF AMERICAN
JUSTICE. MY MOM TAUGHT ME THAT JUDGES DON’T DEAL IN ABSTRACT
PRINCIPLES, THEY DECIDE FOR REAL CASES FOR REAL PEOPLE IN THE
REAL WORLD. SHE TAUGHT ME THAT GOOD JUDGES MUST ALWAYS STAND IN
THE SHOES OF OTHERS. THE CHAIRMAN REFERRED TO ME AS JUDGE KAVANAUGH, TO ME THAT
TITLE WILL ALWAYS BELONG TO MY MOM. FOR 12 YEARS I HAVE BEEN A
JUDGE ON THE US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT. I HAVE
WRITTEN MORE THAN 300 OPINIONS AND HANDLED MORE THAN 2000 . I
HAVE GIVEN IT MY ALL IN EVERY CASE. I AM PROUD OF THAT BODY OF
WORK AND I STAND BEHIND IT. I TELL PEOPLE DON’T READ ABOUT MY
JUDICIAL OPINIONS, READ THE OPINIONS. I HAVE SERVED WITH 17
OTHER JUDGES, EACH OF THEM A COLLEAGUE AND A FRIEND ON A
COURT NOW LED BY THE CHIEF JUDGE GARLAND . MY JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD. A JUDGE MUST BE INDEPENDENT AND MUST INTERPRET
THE LAW NOT MAKE THE LAW. A JUDGE MUST INTERPRET STATUES AS
WRITTEN — STATUTES AS WRITTEN INFORMED
BY HISTORY AND TRADITION AND PRECEDENT. DECIDING CASES A JUDGE MUST
ALWAYS KEEP IN MIND WHAT ALEXANDER HAMILTON SAID IN
FEDERALIST 83, THE RULES OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION ARE RULES
OF COMMON SENSE. A GOOD JUDGE MUST BE AN UMPIRE,
A NEUTRAL AND IMPARTIAL WHO FAVORS NO LITIGANT OR POLICY. AS
JUSTICE KENNEDY EXPLAINED IN TEXAS VERSUS JOHNSON ONE OF
HIS GREATEST OPINIONS JUDGES DO NOT MAKE DECISIONS TO REACH A
PREFERRED RESULT. JUDGES MAKE DECISIONS BECAUSE THE LAW AND
THE CONSTITUTION AS WE SEE THEM COMPEL THE RESULTS. OVER THE
PAST 12 YEARS I HAVE ROLLED SOMETIMES FOR THE
PROSECUTION AND SOMETIMES FOR CRIMINAL DEFENDANT. SOMETIMES
FOR WORKERS AND IS SOMETIMES FOR BUSINESSES. SOMETIMES FOR
ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND SOMETIMES FOR COAL MINERS. IN EACH CASE I
HAVE FOLLOWED THE LAW . I DO NOT DECIDE CASES BASED ON
PERSONAL OR POLICY PREFERENCES. I AM NOT A PRO PLAINTIFF OR
PRO-DEFENDANT JUDGE. I AM NOT PRO-PROSECUTION OR PRO-DEFENSE I
AM A PRO LAW JUDGE. AS JUSTICE KENNEDY SHOWED US A
JUDGE MUST BE INDEPENDENT NOT SWAYED BY PUBLIC PRESSURE . OUR INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY IS
THE CROWN JEWEL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. IN OUR
INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY THE SUPREME COURT IS THE LAST LINE
OF DEFENSE FOR THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND FOR THE RIGHTS AND
LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION. THE SUPREME COURT
MUST NEVER, NEVER BE VIEWED AS A PARTISAN INSTITUTION. THE JUSTICES ON THE SUPREME
COURT DO NOT SIT ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF AN AISLE. THEY DO NOT
CAUCUS IN SEPARATE ROOMS. IF CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME COURT I
WOULD BE PART OF A TEAM OF NINE DECIDING CASES ACCORDING TO THE
CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. I WOULD ALWAYS
STRIVE TO BE A TEAM PLAYER ON THE TEAM OF NINE. THROUGHOUT MY LIFE I HAVE TRIED
TO SERVE THE COMMON GOOD IN KEEPING WITH MY HIGH SCHOOL
MOTTO MEN FOR OTHERS I HAVE SPENT MY CAREER IN PUBLIC
SERVICE AND TUTORED AT WASHINGTON JESUIT ACADEMY A
TUITION SCHOOL FOR BOYS FROM LOW INCOME FAMILIES. A CATHOLIC
CHARITIES I SERVED MEALS TO THE HOMELESS WITH MY FRIEND AND AND THOSE WORKS I KEEP IN
MIND THE MESSAGE OF MATTHEW 25 AND TRY TO SERVE THE LEAST
FORTUNATE AMONG US . I KNOW I FALL SHORT AT TIMES,
BUT I ALWAYS WANT TO DO MORE AND BETTER. FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS I COACH
MY DAUGHTER OFFICE BASKETBALL TEAMS. I LOVE COACHING. ALL THE
GIRLS I HAVE COACHED ARE AWESOME. A SPECIAL
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE GIRLS ON THIS YEAR’S SIXTH GRADE
CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM. I LOVE HELPING THE GIRLS GROW
INTO COMPETENT PLAYERS. I KNOW THAT CONFIDENCE ON THE BASCO
COURT TRANSLATES INTO CONFIDENCE INTO OTHER ASPECTS OF LIFE.
TITLE IX HELPED ME GIRLS AND WOMEN SPORTSPEOPLE AND I SEE
THAT LAW LEGACY EVERY NIGHT WHEN I
WALKED INTO MY HOUSE AS MY DAUGHTERS ARE GETTING BACK FROM
ROSS OR BASKETBALL OR HOCKEY PRACTICE. I KNOW FROM MY OWN
LIFE THAT THOSE WHO COACHED AMERICA’S
YOUTH ARE SOME OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN OUR
COUNTRY. WITH A KIND WORD HERE AND A HINT OF ENCOURAGEMENT THEY
ARE A WORD OF DISCIPLINE DELIVERED IN THE SPIRIT OF LOVE,
TEACHERS AND COACHES CHANGE LIVES. I THANK ALL MY TEACHERS AND
COACHES WHO HAVE GOTTEN ME TO THIS POINTS AND ALL OF THOSE
THROUGHOUT AMERICA. AS A JUDGE I SOUGHT TO TRAIN THE NEXT
GENERATION OF LAWYERS AND LEADERS. FOR 12 YEARS I TAUGHT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TO HUNDREDS OF STUDENTS PRIMARILY AT HARVARD
LAW SCHOOL. I TEACH THAT THE CONSTITUTION
SEPARATION OF POWERS PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND I AM
GRATEFUL TO ALL OF MY STUDENTS. I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH FROM
THEM. I AM ESPECIALLY GRATEFUL TO THE DEAN WHO FIRST HIRED ME
NOW JUSTICE KAGAN . ONE OF THE BEST PARTS OF MY
JOB AS A JUDGE IS EACH YEAR HIRING FOUR RECENT LAW SCHOOL
GRADUATES TO SERVE AS MY LAW FOR THE YEAR. I HIRE THE BEST. MY
LAW CLERKS COME FROM DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS AND POINTS OF VIEW.
A MAJORITY OF MY 48 LAW CLERKS HAVE BEEN WOMEN. MORE THAN A
QUARTER OF MY LAW CLERKS HAVE BEEN MINORITIES AND I HAVE HAD
FAR MORE AFRICAN-AMERICAN LAW CLERKS THE PERCENTAGE OF
AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS IN US LAW SCHOOLS. I AM PROUD OF ALL
OF MY LAW CLERKS. I AM GRATEFUL FOR MY FRIENDS. THIS PAST MAY I
DELIVERED THE COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS AT CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY
LAW SCHOOL. I GAVE THE GRADUATES THIS ADVICE, CHERISH YOUR
FRIENDS , LOOK OUT FOR YOUR FRIENDS,
LIFT UP YOUR FRIENDS, LOVE YOUR FRIENDS. OVER THE LAST EIGHT WEEKS I HAVE
BEEN STRENGTHENED BY THE LOVE OF MY FRIENDS. I THINK THEM. I AM GRATEFUL TO HAVE MY FAMILY
BEHIND ME, MY MOM RIGHTLY GETS A LOT OF ATTENTION, BUT A FEW
WORDS ABOUT MY DAD. HE HAS AN UNPARALLELED WORK ETHIC AND A
GIFT FOR MAKING FRIENDS WITH PEOPLE REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY
ARE OR WHERE THEY COME FROM. MY DAD AND I ARE BOTH PASSIONATE SPORTS FANS.
WHEN I WAS SEVEN HE TOOK ME TO THE 1972 CHAMPIONSHIP TWO MILES
FROM HERE. UPPER DECK SECTION 503 ROW THREE SEATS EIGHT AND
NINE. WHEN I WAS 17 WE SAT IN THE SAME
SEATS FOR THE 1982 CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. IN 1995 WHEN I WAS 30 WE
WENT WHEN CAL RIPKEN PLAYED HIS 131st CONSECUTIVE GAME AND BROKE
THE UNSEEMLY UNBREAKABLE RECORD AND SO MANY OTHER GAMES WITH MY
DAD. A LIFETIME OF FRIENDSHIP FORCE IN STADIUM SEATS OVER HOT
DOGS AND BEER. MY DAUGHTERS WILL BE IN AND OUT
OF THIS HEARING ROOM OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS AND THEY ARE
STRONG GIRLS DEDICATED STUDENTS, OUTSTANDING ATHLETES AND IN THE TIME SINCE YOU LAST
SAW THEM AT THE WHITE HOUSE CEREMONY ON JULY 9 I AM PLEASED
TO THAT MARGARET GOT HER BRACES OFF AND HAS TURNED 13. MARGARET
IS THE SWEETEST GIRL YOU WILL EVER KNOW AS FOR LIZA I TELL HER
EVERY NIGHT THAT NO ONE GIVES A BETTER HUG. FINALLY I THINK MY
WIFE ASHLEY SHE IS A STRONG WEST TEXAN A GRADUATE OF ABILENE COOPER PUBLIC HIGH
SCHOOL AND THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN. SHE IS NOW THE
POPULAR TOWN MANAGER OF OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT
EXACTLY BEEN THE SUMMER SHE HAD PLANNED FOR THE FAMILY. I AM
GRATEFUL FOR HER LOVE AND INSPIRATION. ASHLEY IS A KIND
SOUL. SHE ALWAYS EASY GOODNESS AND
OTHERS. SHE HAS MADE ME A BETTER PERSON AND A BETTER JUDGE. I THINK GOD EVERY DAY FOR MY
FAMILY. MR. CHAIRMAN, SENATOR FEINSTEIN,
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE REST OF THE HEARING AND TO ANSWERING
YOUR QUESTIONS. I AM AN OPTIMIST AND I LIVE ON THE SUNRISE SIDE
OF THE MOUNTAIN ON THE SUNSET SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN. I SEE THE
DAY THAT IS COMING OUT THE DAY THAT IS GONE. I AM OPTIMISTIC
ABOUT THE FUTURE OF AMERICA. I AM OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE
OF OUR INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY. I REVERE THE CONSTITUTION . IF CONFIRMED TO THE SUPREME
COURT I WILL KEEP AN OPEN MIND IN EVERY CASE. I WILL DO EQUAL
RIGHTS FOR THE POOR AND THE RICH . I WILL ALWAYS STRIVE TO
PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE AMERICAN
RULE OF LAW. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. I HAVE SOMETHING I WANT TO SAY
TO THE COMMITTEE, BUT BEFORE THAT WE HAVE BEEN HERE
APPROXIMATELY EIGHT HOURS. YOU HAVE HAD A LOT TO HEAR TODAY AND
LISTEN TO AND I THINK IT IS NOTE WORTHY THAT NO ONE HAS SERIOUSLY
QUESTIONED YOUR QUALIFICATIONS TO RECEIVE A PROMOTION TO THE
HIGHEST COURT AND THEY HAVE LEARNED A LOT
ABOUT YOU BEING AN EXCEPTIONAL TEACHER, COACH, VOLUNTEER, DAD
IN ADDITION TO BEING AN EXCEPTIONAL JUDGE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR STATEMENT. QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD ARE DUE
MONDAY SEPTEMBER 10 AT NOON. YOU WILL NOTICE HIS MARKUP MEETING
FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13. THIS TIMELINE IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW
WE HAVE HANDLED PAST SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS. I WANT
EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW SO THAT MEMBERS
AND THE STAFF CAN BE WORKING ON A WRITTEN QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT
THE WEEK AND WITH THAT WE WILL RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING AT
9:30 WHEN WE WILL START THE FIRST ROUND OF RUSSIANS AGAIN,
EACH SENATOR WILL HAVE 30 MINUTES FOR THE FIRST ROUND OF
QUESTIONS AND I INTEND TO GO LIKE WE HAVE THAT PEOPLE WILL
HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS THEY WANT TO ASK. WE
START OUT WITH THE 30 MINUTES AND 20 MINUTES SECOND ROUND SO
EVERYONE WILL HAVE A CHANCE FOR A 50 MINUTE CRACK AT THE
STRONGER — STRONG JUDGE. MEETING ADJOURNED.

100 Responses

  1. C A Beverforden says:

    Why do the Democrats callously disregard the rights of the on born human beings? We are well beyond the ability of preterm children to survive since 1970. These humans have less rights then criminals in prison.

  2. War Lord says:

    Obamacare, A.K.A, the Affordable Care Act began in the US Senate. The "penalty" was ruled by the Chief Supreme Court Justice to be a Tax. According to the US Constitution, all taxes MUST originate in the United States House of Representatives. That alone makes Obamacare un-Constitutional.

  3. Baraku NigBongo says:

    KAMALA HARRIS (aka Niggerus Interuptus) was the FUNNIEST of all the LIBTARD KOOKS in this CIRCUS SIDE SHOW by the DEMOCRATS.

  4. War Lord says:

    NO! We will NOT suspend the hearings. "Elections have consequences. Deal with it." President Barrack Hussein Obama

  5. Earl Gray says:

    * * * As a loving, caring father I commit every molecule in my body to lead by example. Encouraging my young children to watch the news with me every evening to become aware of their world and the value of knowledge. But this has changed due to the audacity of the vile, vulgar, bombastic, evil devil occupying the citizen owned Whitehouse. You see my sons & daughters began watching the news before Tump and occasionally there was content that I felt was inappropriate. However during a recent newscast they giggled at the word "pornstar" and asked me to set-up a telescope and find it. I do not blame the legitimate media (Fox and Breitbart not included) for the reporting. Adults must know the truth. I abruptly changed the subject and explained the importance of voting in order to make sure that a very bad man will not become president ever again as Donald Trump has. Thankyou Donald J. Trump (unworthy of being addressed as President Trump) due to your dreadful conduct I must deny my precious children access to news casts, instead I read the newspaper where I can sensor what they hear. You have encroached on our freedom. SHAME ON YOU. As a father that works very hard just to get by, without a doubt I possess wealth that you do not have the capacity to comprehend. You poor, sad, man.

  6. Jack Spratt says:

    that old nut case Frankenfienstein should be in the hot seat for colluding with the chinese. Old bag is shaking she has no morals like the lefties and all Demorats

  7. Tsetsi says:

    Looks like another choreographed show!

  8. s bright says:

    Clearly progressive believe in democracy and civility … unless they don’t get their way

  9. Bradly Brad says:

    2:33:00 Hatch, stroke Kav just a little slower I’m about to get off too

  10. Rafael Avila says:

    L is for the Left

  11. Mark W. says:

    Libtards acting especially tard.

  12. Victor Garcia says:

    What Ted Cruz said was absolutely accurate! The Democratic Party has gone too left and has turned too radical.

  13. HyperionSc2 says:

    Honestly the supreme court now needs term limits because this is NOT supposed to be about party and apparently EVERYTHING is. It's ridiculous. We are supposed to look if they hold up the constitution in a reasonable manner and follow the law not "OH HE IS A BIT CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL." This country is dead in 10 years.

  14. Ryan A says:

    I love how he answers their questions and they still protest

  15. Ryan A says:

    Again thanks for posting the full video

  16. Marshal says:

    Animosity on both sides is digusting to watch. If there are such big qualms with who was nominated why even let it get to this point??

  17. Rezonite says:

    This is fking hilarious 🤣🤣🤣

  18. Marc Peltier says:

    I
    I h
    I ha
    I hat
    I hate
    I hate p
    I hate po
    I hate pol
    I hate poli
    I hate polit
    I hate politi
    I hate politic
    I hate politics
    I hate politic
    I hate politi
    I hate polit
    I hate poli
    I hate pol
    I hate po
    I hate p
    I hate
    I hat
    I ha
    I h
    I

  19. Riku u says:

    Orange man bad

  20. Michał Szulc says:

    1:03:40 Start, before someone was screaming, so this is best place for start

  21. ted gapinski says:

    How they can let those mentally ill people to yell and scream is behond belief. There are strict rules that you are to be quiet during this process. There has to be jail time for these communists. Hope to see this not happen tomorrow. Lets preach and teach unity unity unity from both sides!

  22. VIC-20 says:

    He's going to be a great justice!

  23. laynn 10 says:

    Thank you God for moving this forward! Glory To God Almighty! You have access to the man that is enough!

  24. Fox Trot says:

    Cory Booker aka Al Sharpton Jr, Dick Durbin, Leahey are well trained liars as is Kamala Harris and Sen. Whitehouse who lied about esteemed 5 Supreme Court Justices being corrupt. Democrats are shameless liars. Bravo Sen. Ben Sasse, Sen Graham, Sen Tallis and Sen Ted Cruz for saying how it is. Sen. Hirono has the mentality of a child, she only wants ultra leftist judges appointed on all circuit courts, she just does not seem to understand why any conservative judges exist.

  25. Sally Wingles says:

    Well, we are still waiting for 33K (and more) documents and we had to live with it. Mr. Grassley you were cool, calm, and collected. Thank you!

  26. laynn 10 says:

    You Democrats are really reaching, showing how childish and bitter you truly are. You will confirm this man soon in Jesus name Amen and Amen

  27. Satay Geronimo says:

    This is how dictatorship looks like… Its just ugly!!!

  28. Ben M says:

    Kavanaugh is a wrecking ball to American Democracy. His appointment to the Supreme Court will be catastrophic. Putin is dancing on his desk The Founder's are retching.

  29. Wolfman0093 says:

    Just wait until dems take back the House and Senate. Up 14 points.

  30. Гулбахор Фазылова says:

    ппп

  31. flightisallright says:

    The hearings should be postponed till after the midterms.

  32. MP warrior says:

    Confirmed him already.

  33. dach829 says:

    I hope he doesnt get confirmed. He is conservative in title only. Ffs, stop voting for people because of their labels. He supports government spying.

  34. CeeGix says:

    Bye bye abortions

  35. Alex Maurer says:

    These protestors are the unemployed dummycrats who are paid to be there. That's why the dummycrats need illegals and the welfare class. Home all day, on public aid, called and paid to protest. Republicans, wake up and earn a living. Oops, and win the Presidency.

  36. MysticMess✧99ნ says:

    They never expected her to lose, now they're all confused.

  37. TONY315 Lo-Fi Hip-Hop says:

    Check out an original Lo Fi hip-hop from Russia.
    Please, look broadcastings how I do music in Ableton, if you got a minute?!

  38. Russ The Man says:

    Not the American process i once knew . Shouting , protesters ? Thank you Democratic snowflakes .

  39. BJB says:

    liberals/democrats are nuts eh? They have a serious disease we should take note of – worse than cancer

  40. Lin Tian says:

    Ted Cruz did a great job!

  41. A.N. says:

    I am sorry but I hope that one of his daughters will be raped by a mexican immigrant when she is older and gets impregnated because of it…let's see if he is still against abortion..

  42. Ashkan says:

    What is that girl yelling at 1:31:15 ??

  43. Mr. Fier says:

    Boy – government has done a great job of dividing the people. Just what they want. I know Trump is a rich guy yada yada – out for his pockets – just like every one else… but hes not a politician hence the many mistakes. He should not use twitter – he should not be looked to as a moral compass on how to make a marriage work. If he actually made the decision to do those things hed be AMAZING as a president. You know what…. he is alot better than the pro criminal Hillary would have been. How could anyone disagree. We need more regular successful people like Trump who are willing to step up to the plate like Donald Trump. Hopefully he opened the door. If he accomplished that alone I would think he did the country a major service. Or does everyone here just want to let the pros keep doing the pro politician thing that got us here in the first place.

  44. San Diego Rideshare Driver says:

    The left/right narrative is designed to keep an easily controllable US population in check.
    A house divided is profitable.

  45. is everybody in * says:

    something creepy about this guy kavanaugh

  46. is everybody in * says:

    brett seems like a disturbed guy

  47. Dohnuts says:

    Yes!!! This guy will bring the much needed liberty America needs.

  48. RealCaliforniaCheese says:

    I was working on a project with my kid… and i gotta tell ya… i couldn't even find any wire hangers… anywhere… so… no worries, ladies.😁

  49. Yassien Ahmed says:

    SUBSCRIBE TO MY CHANNEL

  50. jorge ruiz says:

    Omg Durbin cry baby Durbin who can’t even fix his city of Chicago

  51. jorge ruiz says:

    Durbin go fix the all the black on black crime in Chicago

  52. Old Chingu says:

    Wow. Thank you Washington Post for the whole process. You give the people a chance to actually think for themselves and frankly got me inspired. If only one person sees this it will make my day. I am a Korean American Rapper from Baltimore, MD currently focusing on music and my faith. Yes I'm very aware that people make these comments every day, but I honestly believe that you'll be excited to have found me. I'm a new artist and my monthly listeners are expanding. If just ONE PERSON could give this a thumbs up, you'll be much closer to helping me share my passion and art with those that need to hear it. I promise I actually make pretty good music and you'll be mad surprised. All I need is one chance (3 min). I'll be looking forward to hearing from you.

  53. Russ The Man says:

    The American People do not have a say in this. Stop with the Chaos in the Chambers.

  54. War Lord says:

    Sheldon Whitehouse and his party members go on far more partisan excursions than the Supreme Court does.

  55. War Lord says:

    Hmm, stari decisis. Like Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessey v. Ferguson, Koramatsu v. US. Under Sheldon Whitehouse's idea of adhering to stari decisis all of those cases would still be the law of the land.

  56. War Lord says:

    I wonder if Sheldon Whitehouse is going to ask a question or just bloviate for his 20 minutes.

  57. War Lord says:

    Funny how Whitehouse praised Kennedy when he sided with the left, but now refers to the "Roberts 5" as if Kennedy was such a staunch Republican. What a joke.

  58. 40-Mile Desert Rat says:

    A peak into the mind of most Dims.

  59. War Lord says:

    Sheldon Whitehouse is an absolute disgrace by having his aide hold up those garbage signs behind him as he talks.

  60. War Lord says:

    Yep, Whitehouse bloviated for all 20 of his minutes and didn't ask a single question.

  61. Eve Ihlone says:

    Let's make "Christian Sharia" the law of the land. Why should the Muslims have all the fun? MAGA!

  62. 4n0m4ly says:

    Those that do not adhere to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States of America are the enemies and terrorists. Party lines are no safe haven to those that are against Americas laws.

  63. Dogman 444 says:

    why are these old whites in court someone tell me why this is trending pls lmao

  64. Sheena says:

    Democrats crack me up

  65. REAl REAction says:

    Last winter, Nike unveiled the “Pro Hijab”. Now it decided to make Colin Kaepernick, the racist black nationalist who began the trend of protesting the national anthem, into the face of its Just Do It campaign. Nike’s new contract with its America-hating racist will rush out Kaepernick shoes and jerseys. No word on whether Kaepernick’s socks showing police officers as pigs will also be part of the package.

  66. Jack Berlage says:

    Wow the liberals were just lined up outside ready to take advantage of the open courtroom. They’re screaming whenever they hear a Republicans voice. This is unbelievably inappropriate.

  67. Mychal Golden says:

    Oh yuhhhhhh that's my dad representinnnnnnnnnnn

  68. bizzwoofer says:

    The Wapo is such a God-damned joke! Keep diggin your holes you frothing psycho shitbag lunatics, to Hell with you one and all….

  69. MrAnonymous31337 says:

    yes we can..shake his hand..

  70. Greg in Arizona says:

    12 years of Judging experience really isnt all that much for being a Supreme Court Justice, imo.
    To me, Kavanaugh seems too young and green to be a SCJ. The hearings are a formality at this point, Pubs will rubber-stamp him soon.

  71. Arnie Kando says:

    Its like the whole thing was stage by the media with the hecklers at the back. dont even know whos who or what but it looks staged by someone, my met is some media house with an agenda

  72. Super 🐧 says:

    Equality apparently is shouting until you get your way

  73. sandyh6776 says:

    They always ask for respect but they sure don't know how to give any respect. They're pathetic

  74. Hildebeast Clinton says:

    LEFT DAY ONE: non stop crying, fussing, yelling, moaning and groaning. LOVE IT.

  75. vkorchnoifan says:

    Stunts perform by the Left and the Democracts try to make the hearing a circus. The documents are being used as a foil to pierce this hearing to obstruction

  76. theback bencher says:

    Thanks for posting this but I feel I’m the only guy whose gonna sit through 8 hours of this .

  77. theback bencher says:

    How is stolen valor bluminthal still a thing ?

  78. jmmacb03 says:

    Why the document dump on Friday and then another document DUMP on the last day of the long weekend when the Republicans had 57 days to read the last batch? You have to ask yourself WHY THE RUSH?
    There is NO other democracy in the WORLD that has LIFETIME appointments for the Supreme Court!
    BTW: This would not be allowed in any court in the land—to have "discovery" dumped w/o enough time to read through 102,000 documents. Why are they blocking the release of documents? This is unprecedented.
    The entire WORLD is watching this circus and the corruption… (They spent over 1 yr with Garland!)
    Your Republic is broken and your president unfit.
    And who is "Bill Burke"?? Anyone? Who does he work for?

  79. John Redberg says:

    Democracy dies in plain sight.

  80. Mr. Sotack says:

    The left is insane

  81. Daniel Arsenault says:

    4:30:00 saving my place.

  82. -TJ Bear says:

    Somebody please post time stamps for audible screeching and arrests during hearing. Thank you.

  83. jmmacb03 says:

    "Truth is more important than party." Thank you, Mr. Leahy
    Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions in split-decision cases, found that during his 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh decided or wrote an opinion against the public interest 87% of the time in split-decision cases dealing with consumer, environmental and worker rights.
    Why is the NRA spending millions to get Kavanaugh appointed?
    Your spider-sense should be tingling America. This stinks.

  84. william luttrell says:

    yell and scream if you don't get your way not looking good for the democrats the cops look like bouncers at a club where some people are drunk and rude

  85. Story Time Media says:

    That woman sitting behind Kavanaugh is gorgeous, what's her IG?

  86. Abraha, Al-Rai says:

    Maybe Kavanaugh raped those girls lol

  87. DragonmasterCire says:

    2 Hours in and we still have YET to hear the Opening speech of the House Majority.

  88. SxG Infinity says:

    Love how Brett just sittin there just listening while he's the one who supposed to be getting asked questions and answering them….

  89. SxG Infinity says:

    Could someone please explain why the Trump Administration won't just release these documents? I truly don't understand, if there really wasn't anything to hide then they could of saved people a lot of time.

  90. Stan Schurman says:

    If this guy is confirmed, the crime most committed in the USA will be Contempt of Court, because that's all the SCOTUS will deserve.

  91. Lisa Towe says:

    And FYI, IF Congress were upholding their legislative responsibility and accountability as per the framework of this country, they would not be emoting like idiots about Supreme Court nominees and presidential choices. They would ask the right questions and be solid in their knowledge that the court of any height, supreme or otherwise, and executive branch of any alphabet, including president, will be held to UPHOLDING the laws put in place by congress. That would be them. These hearings show that they, like many opining stupidly on public sites, have no idea what being responsible within their job description means. Anyone who has held a job knows what that means. Do your job, take consequences and adjust to do it better, or get out

  92. Michael Rech says:

    Yea I wonder were the deleted emails from Clinton at…….eat your own words liberals

  93. Tianlan Shen says:

    1:13:12 1:14:01 brett smiled
    1:14:39 brett speaks
    1:26:00 Mrs. Feinstein speaks
    1:33:25 – 1:35:57 Kennedy's question answered by Mr. Grassley
    2:21:58 finally the whole questioning thing starts:)

  94. Rieksfier says:

    5:00:06 So does that include Hillary and all of her email shenanigans, Steele dossier, Benghazi, Uranium 1?

  95. Xyce Bedet says:

    Thank you for showing the protests, WP, even if you did not show the others. That is mostly the reason why I watch these hearings anyway. Funny thing is I don't remember any protesting when Democrats nominate people to be a justice for the Supreme Court. I guess decorum in that respect only falls on one side of the aisle. Perhaps someone can show me otherwise.

  96. Sassy Frassy says:

    Democrat senators are obstructionists and will come up with the lamest questions to ask, knowing they will vote no anyway! They are a disgrace to this country! Let's have another Red Wave in NOV!
    I believe more and more Americans are waking up to the truth about the democrats! I was a democrat and turned Republican when billy boy clinton was in the Oval office!

  97. ajax fenix says:

    Democrat Party ( Devil's Party ) : have invented a lie of 35 years.

  98. Truth Puppet says:

    A new story is getting ready to break with the Washington Post in the next 24 hours. A girl named "Kim", who's pretty sure that she went to kindergarten with Kavanaugh, and is almost positive that it was him that wiped her va-jay-jay in the girls restroom, may also possibly be the guy that packed her keester at a college frat party, although she never looked over her shoulder, but the guy sure sounded like the boy that wiped her in kindergarten. More truth coming soon, please Google "Truth Puppet" to see what's coming.

  99. The C. Sisters says:

    Do they really think the american people dont see what the dems are trying to do here with the " lets have a fBI investigation . we can see your trying to stall the nomination untill after elections so you can possibly get the majority and stop his nomination and do damage to trump ! Shame on them and shame on the media for helping them. Get a clue ! you didnt get it in 2016 and your still under estimating the American people!!

  100. LUMA NATE says:

    Disgusting all the way around by democrats. Hard to think I used to vote for these guys.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *