Day one of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing

by:

American Today News

>> 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 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. >> 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. >> 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 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 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 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 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. >> >> 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 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. . 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 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 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. >> >> 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? 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. MICHAEL BILSON, 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 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 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 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 -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 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. .

As found on Youtube

Comments are closed.