in the nominations process. that is why i believe it would be a mistake for the committee to issue a subpoena, thus setting up a court case which could go on for years before it is finally resolved as to whether the claims are privileged were valid or not. sen. grassley: senator feinstein said to me she was hoping she could use her opening statement. put my opening statement in the record if you want to go to your statement and then we will go to the business if we can. feinstein: we have motions that relate to the kavanaugh proceedings. i also have a motion when you can get to me. sen. grassley: you have a motion? your motion but i should call on senator durbin first. >> i defer to the ranking members opening statement. sen. grassley: i would like to get these motions on the way before we do our business. >> i would like to observe that every member of this committee has gone back to their homestay and told people when asked, it is time to restore civility in the united states senate. it is time for us to try a

ofjudge brett kavanaugh, approve the nomination ofjudge brett kava naugh, the approve the nomination ofjudge brett kavanaugh, the full senate vote would have ta ken brett kavanaugh, the full senate vote would have taken place next week but what has now happens is that a motion has been put forward for a one—week pause for the full senate vote to allow for a potential fbi investigation. let's cross live to gary o'donoghue in washington, a moment of confusion, take us through what we've witnessed in the last 5-10 what we've witnessed in the last 5—10 minutes. what we've witnessed in the last 5-10 minutes. you thought you were getting to the end of the story but you are not, another twist in an extraordinary process which has divided this congress and this country. what we have seen today is jeff flake, the republican senator from arizona, opponent to donald trump, a man stepping down later this year, he said he would back the nomination of brett kavanaugh, it was a key republican vote because that made it ii—io was a key republican vote because that made it 11—10 on the committ

i cannot support this nomination. madam president, i would like to end the remarks i would've given at the markup that i'm giving those remarks on the floor now. i would like to say that my colleague, senator jeff flake has said that he would not be able to vote on the confirmation of judge kavanaugh without an fbi investigation into the current allegations. i support that. i have no idea if the republican leadership is going to allow a timeout for that kind of investigation to occur, and investigation that i and others the democratic members of the judiciary committee has been calling for for what seems like months and of course, i would want an fbi investigation to be thorough. i don't want a peripheral investigation to give cover to senators who are wavering. i would want investigation by the fbi to be thorough, real, provide us with information that we need to make a determination as to the credibility, candor, and character of judge kavanau kavanaugh. >> madam president, the judiciary committee had an extraoar

that's why his nomination is in deep trouble. perhaps that's why in poll after poll the plurality of americans say judge kavanaugh should not be confirmed. let us get the facts. let us stop smearing women who have the courage to come forward. let's get to the bottom of this in a correct, appropriate, and dignified way. that's what the american people want. and that's what we should be doing in a bipartisan way in this chamber. i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i wanted to come to the floor and talk for a few minutes to talk about the unfortunate circumstances we find ourselves in as a result of the failure of the ranking member of the judiciary com

to send his nomination to the full senate. they get back, and immediately it is clear something is crazy. something is going unexpectedly, and it is clear that flake has been talking to the minority and having second thoughts. there was not a lot of republicans did you get it may only have a one-c majority on the jud >> he has made it clear, he is not going to vote to confirm the nominee unless they go forward with the fbi investigation which has now been ordered. it seems to be the case he had been in communication with other swing vote senators in making that decision. what do you think was the specific tipping point for senator flake? what changed his mind between announcing in the morning he was going to vote for the nomination and coming to the judiciary committee saying i will vote him out that i have to have this investigation before i will vote for him on the floor of the senate? guest: there's a lot that has been made of some interacts -- interactions flake has had in the capital with folks who have become folk heroes

flake could determine the future of the cap not nomination. back -- kavanaugh nomination. that gives him leverage. we have to make sure we do all due diligence with this nomination after extracting a promise from republican leaders to delay a vote on the nomination until after the investigation. this country is being ripped apart here." we want to know what you think about the fbi reopening the investigation into brett kavanaugh. if you support him, call (202) 748-8001 --(202) 748-8000. if you oppose him, call (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, call (202) 748-8002.we are to have john calling from california. john opposes brett kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. ppose him.ose -- o i am also very disappointed in this process. it is just not going to make any difference taking a one-week hiatus for the fbi to do an investigation. i think we all know that. they will just find another excuse to delay. host: let's go to lori calling from maryland. she supports brett kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: hi support kavanaugh -- i sup

the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, william f. jung of florida to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, kari a. dooley of connecticut to be united states district judge for the district of connecticut. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, dominick w. lanza of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second. there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

when this nomination first came to the senate, i was skeptical. like the nominees descending to the lower federal court, i expect we will see a nominee hand-picked by the federal society and heritage society caring out the right wing supported by the president. it turned out to be much worse than i imagined. not only was a nominee someone who fit that description and became clear that he was someone who lacked candid, credibility and character. at the hearing from doctor ford and brett kavanaugh and yesterday, a well respected judge,re endorsed judge kavanau. they said, while we previously endorsed the nomination of judge kavanaugh on the basis of hisat legal credential, and his representations, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn. as they proceed with nominations, they will be prioritizing ames over a woman's report of assault. in addition, robert, president of american bar association, issued a letter urging that the committee of the senate to not vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination until there is an embed fbi investigation

chairman grassley must postpone the vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated. the f.b.i. conducted a background check on judge kavanaugh before these allegations were known. the f.b.i. when they did their background check had no knowledge of what went on here. so it is now the f.b.i.'s responsibility to investigate these claims, update the analysis to judge kavanaugh's background, and report back to the senate the f.b.i. is the right place for this investigation for two reasons. first, the f.b.i. has the resources, the information, and the legal tools to conduct an investigation the right way, far better than some staffer talking to professor ford on the phone. you cannot lie to the f.b.i. that's a crime. the f.b.i. will get to the truth. they almost always do. second, our republican colleagues have run a transparently partisan conversation process, and then they immediately insinuated that dr. ford is being untruthful. republicans and their staff cannot impartially investigate these allegations. the

she had to withdraw her nomination. public support for kavanaugh's nomination is lower than harriet myers enjoyed before she had to withdraw. at least one national poll for kavanaugh's nomination is lower than what we saw for robert bork. he insisted ongoing all the way through to a vote and not withdrawing the way that harriet myers did. bork was rejected by a large bipartisan party in a sense. >> that's a fair nomination. and public support is not everything. the public does not get a direct vote on supreme court nominees. it is striking in this case. that support is so low for kavanaugh. ultimately that kind of thing does end up mattering to senators. if they have reason really seriously consider their vote here. ultimately, it does matter to elected officials particularly right before an election when more americans don't want kavanaugh confirmed or do want him confirmed. brett kavanaugh is under water that way. more people want him rejected than want him confirmed. in that environment with a week of unpopular nomin

the nomination died. and burgess everett was there to their democrats cheering about it behind the doors of senator dick durbin's office. that was seven weeks ago. republicans are in control of the u.s. senate but only barely. they only have a 51-49 majority. at the time of that ryan bounds nomination seven weeks ago, that's when senator john mccain was out sick. so at that point wasn't 51-49. it was 50-49. that meant it would only take one defection to sink any judicial nominee or any other vote in the senate as long as democrats stayed unified in opposition. now senator mccain has been replaced. now it's back to 51-49. that still means the only two republican senators people off on any one vote or nomination, as long as the democrats are unified, that nominee is toast. now after 31 hours of hearings for brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court, it is becoming clear that democrats are proceeding -- republicans are broegs that very, very nomination in mind. there have been some forgive me, i thin

so back to antony scalia's nomination. i remember one of the controversies about that and his nomination, not so much as background, but the fact that he was italian and how italian-americans had to mobilize in the country that we need to move forward from this perception of who we are as a nationality and ethnicity. clarence thomas's nomination of course, that was -- we all know that. it has been replaying out this week. george h. w. bush did make the request for the fbi to reinveste then the nomination process got back on track. of course supreme court , two nominations during george w. bush, justice roberts and then harriet miers was nominated and that had to be pulled back. i remember watching the alito hearings in my office and seeing seeing martha alito crying and then mrs. bush calling her and saying, it is going to be ok. this is politics. this is what people who go into public service unfortunately have to put themselves through. i hope that it doesn't keep people from being willing to serve their government. when

nominations kavanaugh was involved in. >> charles pickering's nomination to the fifth circuit is, the committee learns he collected letters of support from lawyers who appeared in his courtroom and practiced in his district. it became an apparent some of these lawyers had cases pending before him. when they wrote the letters judge pickering requested. did you know that judge pickering planned to solicit letters of support in this manner before he did so? if not, when did you become aware that judge pickering had solicited these letters of support? >> the answer to the first question, senator, is no. this was not one of the judicial nominees that i was primarily handling. >> brett kavanaugh telling it the senator under oath that this nomination of charles pickering was not one that i was primarily handling. his characterization of that work on the nomination of that judge has now been contradicted white house documents that republicans apparently intended to keep confidential so they couldn't be released to the public. those documents got released to the public this week and it turns o

are you hopeful they will be able to stop the nomination? happen,i doubt it will what i think the republicans should think about is this might come back to bite them in the if a democrat wins the presidency next time and and the an opening democrats pull the same thing republicans are doing. do you see what i am saying? it is like they have to look into the future. the decision republicans are making now could come back and bite them. host: here are the numbers and here is how the breakdown would work in the piece in today's new york times by carl on washington, noting senator schumer and his party can do little to stop the confirmation of judge kavanaugh without the help of republicans since his nomination can be brought to the floor and approved by a simple majority vote. absent some major disqualifying -- republicans seem intent on putting that kavanaugh on the supreme court. daniel is in washington, d.c., an independent. go ahead. caller: thank you. i would like to carbon -- comment on a case that came to it wasavanaugh last year him on

kavanaugh was nominated to the court. from my understanding, there are multiple ways to keep her privacy, respect -- keep her privacy respected, keep mr. kavanaugh's privacy respected and do investigations and find out if they still wanted to nominate this person to the supreme court. and then again, as other people have said, when it finally did , i to senator feinstein can't imagine what reason she didn't find a way to look into this, to share it with the committee and also to keep ms. ford's privacy. all these things were possible. highway kathleen let me ask you something. you identify as a democrat, you said you're conservative. do you feel out of sync with you're party not only on this ssue but other issues? caller: let me clarify, i'm a republican. i got the wrong number. i told them when i called in. host: that's ok, appreciate your call. we go to our republican line, kingsport, tennessee. this is j.d., go ahead. make sure you mute your television and go ahead with your comment. caller: yes. yes, sir, i have and f

assault that leaves his nomination in mortal jeopardy. according to nbc news, judge kavanagh spent the majority of today in white house counsel don mcgahn and others from the counsel's office calling key members of congress in a direct effort of damage control. actually a desperate effort. and here's the breaking news tonight. the senate judiciary committee announced it will hold public hearings this coming monday with kavanagh and his accuser christine blosey ford t. came from all ten democrats on that committee. chairman chuck grassley requested a delay saying there are, quote, serious questions about judge kavanagh's record, truthfulness and character. a growing number of republican senators have also expressed concern over the allegation and said that the senate needs to hear from the accuser. the white house said in a statement tonight judge kavanagh looks forward to a hearing where he can clear his name of this false allegation. >>> earlier in the day the president reaffirmed his support for his nominee with the reservation that he,

judge kavanaugh showed america why i nominated him. his testimony was powerful, honest and riveting. this process has been a total sham. an effort to delay, obstruct and resist. the senate must vote. no mention in the statement about christine blasey ford. that was someone the president was watching testify intently. he called her testimony, i'm told, compelling. he found her believable. he clearly wanted to hear from judge kavanaugh. he wanted to hear anger and push back from judge kavanaugh. that is what judge kavanaugh ga gave him h. i'm told he turned that audience around. the president did not want him to lose faith in his nomination. that, in turn, rallied the conservative base. this is not a done deal at all. as this weekends at the white house, president trump certainly feeling better about the supreme court nominee than he has in more than a week. dave and christine. >> a long day for jeff zeleny. thanks. >>> nearly 60 people arrested among the hundreds who took to the streets to protest kavanaugh's nomination. thursday's hear

then in 1991, president bush nominated clarence thomas. and so by the time thomas is nominated -- by that point there's a well-established expectation that the fbi has to be pretty freaking thorough when it comes to background checks for supreme court nominees. we're not going to have another douglas ginsburg situation here. all right? what the fbi does with these nominees is not a criminal investigation, like they would do if they were planning to potentially prosecute someone. it's just a review, a very comprehensive review of every little thing in the life history of that nominee, to see if there's any derogatory information that might reflect badly on the character or experience of this nominee. honestly, remembering that douglas ginsburg fiasco, the background check for nominees is also supposed to turn up information that might adversely affect the prospects of confirming that nominee to the court. that's why the fbi background check on a potential nominee is handed over to the white house, so the white house can then make a decision

in 1991, president bush nominated collnominat nominated clarence thomas. by the time thomas was nominated, there was a well expectations that the fbi had to be thorough when it comes to background check for supreme court nominees. we are not going to have another douglas ginsburg situation here. what the fbi does with these nominees, it is not a criminal investigation like they would do if they are planning to prosecute someone. it is a review of every little thing and the life history of that nominee. to see if there is any derogatory information that may reflect badly on the character or the experience of this nominee and honestly remembering that douglas ginsburg's fiasco. the fbi is also supposed to turn up information of confirming that nominee to the court. that's why the fbi background check on a potential nominee is handed over to the white house. so the white house can then make a decision based and part on that background check whether or not they should nominate that person pfor the court. when clarence thomas was nominated by george h.w. bush,

but looking closer to a resolution on this nomination. today with the judiciary committee i'm glad we could pass that nomination to the senate floor. summer saying we are moving too fast. to them i would say it is clear what the objective of the opponents of the nomination is. the objective is delay. delay. delay. some have said their goal is to delay the confirmation past the midterm electionso to hope it turns out well for them and essentially defeat the nomination to keep the supreme court vacancy open until president trump leaves office. first there was a paper chase that they needed more documents or perhaps they said you have too many. but if you have already announced your opposition to the nominee why do you need more information unless you are open to changing yourin mind? but that is not the game we are engaged in. now those that demand the background investigation into two new allegations be opened up and today the majority leader have announced an agreement to extend the background investigation up forma another week for the w

you can see the concern over the nomination. .. to make a decision when the bush white house torture, iraq, there were so many things brought forward not to be able to understand his position on these issues. so have you withdrawn your motion? >> mister chairman, i would be willing to withdraw my motion. >> your motion is withdrawn. >> but i want to state for the record, i want to state for the record that that motion is withdrawn only because it is now moved. it was made as a matter of pending business at the start of this meeting. i recognize the reality the chair has the gavel . there's no way to seek justice here. i disagree with the chair. i'm here under protest. there is a fundamental unfairness here because mine should have been the first order of business. the chair, in my view with all due respect, preempted that right on the part of a committee member who insists on that motion as a first order of business . and iwould yield to my colleague .>> wait a minute, we're going to have some order here on how people speak but to

well there's no question that this is a pivotal nomination and this is a nomination that democrats said even before this process began that they were going to vigorously oppose because they feel that this could shape the court in a direction they do not want to see the united states go so we saw the the ranking democrat the senior senator in the u.s. senate saying that in fact he would oppose this with the socially every fiber of his being as is the paraphrase on the other side we have conservative seeing this is one of the reasons that they voted for donald trump seeing this as nothing more than a smear tactic this was a top priority and so well this could potentially be rail this nomination because if he were to withdraw his name there would be no time before the congressional elections to push another nominee through so what could happen if that were to occur is that you could see these elections in november become even more pivotal given the fact that not only do we expect that democrats are going to come out in full force to push back against the trauma genda but you would see cons

the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 1001, 102, and 1003, and all nominees placed on the secretary's desk, the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that no further motions be in order, any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on environment environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of s. 1417, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1417, a bill to require the secretary of the interior to develop a categorical exclusion for covered vegetative management activities and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the com

the original plan had the senate getting the nomination from the committee and waiting over the nomination to get debate on brett kavanaugh but the senate won't be this weekend as was the original plan. a procedural vote to break a filibuster on monday and there won't be a big confirmation vote tuesday. what is notable about the timetable is what mitch mcconnell didn't do tonight. the republican moved to overcome a filibuster. the process takes four days. on day one you moved to cut out debate, a cloture petition the senate. a full calendar data lapse in between, the next day too. the vote to break the filibuster and end debate occurs on day 3. if the senate votes to crack the filibuster opponent of the nomination are allotted 30 hours to make their last stand. confirmation vote up or down is on day 4. that means we might not have a confirmation vote on brett kavanaugh until next weekend or even as late as the week of october 7th. >> there is growing frustration on the hill at the continual roadblocks for brett kavanaugh. one of them thrown up today by retiring gop senator jeff flake. kris

for you, the president that nominated you, has said i will nominate someone who is anti-choice and pro gun. and we believe what he said. we cannot find the documents that absolve from that conclusion. so what women have won through roe and a host of privacy cases, to be able to control their own reproductive system, to have basic privacy rights, really extraordinarily important to this side of the aisle. and i hope the other side of the aisle as well. last year, you drafted a dissent in garza v hargen. that's a young woman in texas that was seeking an abortion. in that dissent, you argued that even though the young woman had complied with the texas parental notification law and secured an approval from a judge, she should have nonetheless be barred. in making your argument, you ignored and i believe mischaracterized a supreme court precedent. you reasoned 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 argue re-writes streupreme court precedent. and, if adopted, we believe would require courts to d

or the nomination of job kavanaugh. at the end of that meeting and we were about to take oath, senator jeff, our colleague announced the decision that he would request

don't nominate in the last year of a president. do nominate in the last year of a president. don't nominate in the last year of the president. just depends who the president is. principles are very negotiable because they have none. exhibit 5. go. >> it is my view that if a supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, president bush would consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed. mark: but it looks like joe biden, now vice president at the time, and his boss, president obama, took a different position when obama was president. this is from cbs news, march 16, 2016, exhibit 6. go. >> i ask that they confirm merrick garland now to the supreme court so he can take his seat in time to fully participate in its work for the american people this fall. he is the right man for the job. mark: so antonin scalia unfortunately passes away and want to put their guy in. few years before, they said no, you can't do that. bush

pro-life, pro-life, make the nomination and oh, no, no, no. can't tell you anything about how these going to vote. >> neil is right. so easy to say i won't answer a hypothetical and i won't talk about settled law? >> i'd like to see a little more grilling down as well. too easy evasions. what's not hypothetical? anything could be hypothetical. there's a body of scholarly writing. minnesota law article espouses and extremely broad view of the president's executive power's rather than ask questions to easily brush asiask about this article. you said this when you wrote this in 2009. do you still believe that? has that changed? >> having been pretty involved in now justice kagan's hearings and watching her do it. that's what republicans tried to do there. the problem, she is the answer, which was, i was an academic. writy for a different audience. no constraints. i suspect judge kavanaugh would do a similar thing. maybe one tactic, judge, you said judge me by the 300 opinions i've written. okay. go through them. talk about the guardsa abortion op

he tweeted, this is why i nominated this guy. but now in the wake of this last 11th hour switch, i think the white house's calculation is, we don't want to upset thispr ess. maybe we're pretty close to getting where we want to be. so i think the pre very restrained and is determined not to be provocative. >> it's got to be tough for him, molly. flake has been quite the foil. what have you made of flake's decision? is this a retiring senator doing his own thing? ak he actually trying to check the box to sure the nomination goes through? what's the read? >> well, y know, say what you will about jeff flake, he's a very earnest man. he's styled himself as the conscious of the senate in a way that annoys both party es. he's loyal enough for the republicans to like him. but then for the never trumpers he doesn't stand up for trump enough but he's tooco ervative. he's retiring because of his opposition to the president. he wrote a whole book and will be in new hampshire on monday -- robert: is this part of t 2020 gambit? >> i have no id

for you, the president that nominated you, has said i will nominate someone who is anti-choice and pro-gun. and we believe what he said. we cannot find the documents that absolve from that conclusion. so what women have one through roe v. wade and a host of privacy cases, to be able to control their own reproductive system, the basic privacy rights really, extraordinarily important to the site of the aisle. and hope the other side of the aisle as well. last year you drafted a distant in a case where a dead woman in texas i believe with seeking an abortion. in that dissent you argued that he was a young woman had complied with the texas parental notification law and secured an approval from the judge, she should nonetheless be barred. in making your argument you ignored and i believe mischaracterize the supreme court precedent. you recent that jane doe should not be unable to exercise her right to choose the tissue did not have family and friends to make a decision. the argument rewrites supreme court precedent, and if adopted, we believe, would require courts to determine whether a young w

it's a nomination to the supreme court. the highest court in the land, that determines through their legal rulings, the lives of americans and in many instances is seen as the arbiter of right and wrong. are we going to let this happen? not even hear what someone who believes she was terribly aggrieved, and i believe her, has to say? when the credibility of a supreme court justice is on the line. we're going to just brush it under the rug? and again, after delaying merrick garland for over a year with no explanation why we can't wait a much shorter period of time, the double standard, the twisting of this body into a cruel, nasty partisanship unprecedented in a feverish desire to fill the bench with people the other side agrees with, it's one of the lowest points i've seen in my years here. one of the lowest points. i want to applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have called for hearings. i believe one way or another six have said it should be delayed. i hope they'll be strong and i hope they'll tell lead

best of my recollection assisted me in the nomination and confirmation process. after my confirmation, she and diane holt then my secretary joined me at eeoc. i do not recall that there was any question or doubt that she would become a special assistant to me at e frn oc, all -- eeoc, although as a career employee, retained the option of remaining at the department of education. at e frn oc our -- eeoc, our contact was less frequent as a result of the increased size of my staff and increased responsibilities of day-to-day responsibilities. i seem to recall her having difficulty of adjusting to this role. in any case, our relationship remained cordial and professional. at no time did i become aware directly or indirectly that she felt i had said or done anything to change the cordial nature of our relationship. i detected nothing from her or from my staff or from gil hardy our mutual friend, with whom i maintained regular contact. i am certain that any statement or conduct on my part been brought to my attention, i would remember it clearly because of the nature a

not one senator voted against justice scalia is nomination -- scalia's nomination. that was before judges were viewed as policymakers rather than fair and neutral interpreters of the constitution and the laws drafted by congress. today is a wonderful opportunity to re-examine the proper role for judges under our constitution and the difference between legislators and judges. as justice gorsuch wrote the four he joined the supreme court , "upholding and enforcing this distinction between legislators and judges was the great project of the late justice scalia's career. he would remind us that legislators may appeal to their moral convictions and to claims about social utility, but judges instead should strive to apply the law as it is, looking to the text, structure, and history, not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences." this hearing is an outstanding way to remind the american people that proper role of judges under our constitution. our constitution provides for a federal government and delegated and liberal powers to prot

i was then nominated to be a judge on the d.c. circuit. i was thoroughly vetted by the white house, the fbi, the american bar association, and this committee. i've sat before this committee for two thorough confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006. for the past 12 years leading up to my nomination for this job i've served in a very public arena as a federal judge on what is often referred to as the second most important court in the country. i've handled some of the most significant and sensitive cases affecting lives and liberties of the american people. i have been a good judge. and for this nomination, another fbi background investigation, another american bar association investigation. 31 hours of hearings, 65 senator meetings, 1200 written questions, more than all previous supreme court nominees combin combined. throughout that entire team, throughout my 53 years and 7 months on this earth until last week, no one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct, no one ever. a lifetime, a lifetime of public service and a lifetime of hig

this entire process has cast a cloud over judge kavanaugh's nomination. democrats strongly object to moving forward when so much of his record remained secret. we are shocked at the efforts being undertaken to jam this nominee through and hide his record from the american public. we go to these hearings under protest. thank you. that will conclude this event, and i'm delighted to have all of the members of the judiciary, of the democratic party of the judiciary committee. so thank you very much. >> host: we are just about half an hour away on the beginning of brett kavanaugh is confirmation hearing. we are joined by author david kaplan into we take you do this hearings. david kaplan up with a new book this week on the supreme court. you were listening to senator feinstein concerns about these confirmation hearings. can you talk about what you heard? >> guest: i actually didn't use the butter for the democrats for most of the summer, and they are really bad at politics. you can agree or disagree with whether brett kavanaugh should be on the court but they

i cannot support this nomination. madam president, i'd like to end the remarks that i would have given at the markup, but i'm giving those remarks on the floor now. i would like to say that my colleague, senator jeff flake, has said that he would not be able to vote on the confirmation of judge kavanaugh without an f.b.i. investigation into the current allegations. i support that. i have no idea if the republican leadership is going to allow a time-out for that kind of investigation to occur, an investigation that i and others, the democratic members of the judiciary committee, have been calling for for what seems like months, and of course i would want an f.b.i. investigation to be thorough. i do not want some kind of a peripheral investigation to give cover to senators who are wavering. i would want an investigation by the f.b.i. to be thorough, to be real, to provide us with the kind of information that we need to make a determination as to the credibility, candor, character of judge kavanaugh. i yield the floor. t

with the nomination of brett kavanaugh whose nomination hearings will begin tomorrow. nancy, thank you for being with us. much appreciate. stay with us. us much appreciate. stay with us does this map show the peninsula trail? you won't find that on a map. i'll take you there. take this left. if you listen real hard you can hear the whales. oop. you hear that? (vo) our subaru outback lets us see the world. sometimes in ways we never imagined. a single tap offerss to peace of mind.y, uber is giving you new ways to tell loved ones you're on your way. uber is moving in a new direction. forward. how much more does congress need to see? donald trump has now been implicated in two felony crimes, and he's all but confessed to them on fox news. no one is above the law, so we have to make sure this president doesn't use pardons to cover up crimes. if you agree that a president should not be allowed to pardon himself or his associates, join us at needtoimpeach.com. the washington establishment doesn't have the courage to act, but the american people can. the doctor's office just

for you the president that nominated you has said i will nominate someone who is antichoice and pro-gun and we believe what he said. we cannot find the documents that absolve from that conclusion. so what women have won through roe and a host of privacy cases to be able to control their own reproductive system, to have basic privacy rights, really extraordinarily important to this side of the aisle. i hope the other side of the aisle as well. last year you drafted a dis sent in a case where a young woman in texas was seeking an abortion. you argued that even though the young woman had a h complied with the parental notification law and secured an approval from a judge she would nonetheless be barred. in making your argument, you ignored and i believe mischaracterized a supreme court precedent. you reasoned 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 rewrites supreme court precedent and if adopted, we believe, would require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient suppo

the nomination. >> harris: chris, i want to break in here and i will come to you in a moment friendships on the hill. this is coons and this is flake. right now amy klobuchar senator from arizona is speaking can we watch? >> quite an independent in terms of a lot of the decisions he makes and what he says. he just felt that he had a very important role to play here as a member of the committee. thank you. >> is he still in there. >> huh? >> i believe he is still in there and again a number of us had suggested the week. i suggested it today as did senator coons. and did we actually think that this was going to happen today? no. but we are in a better place than we were at 8:00 a.m. this morning. >> why do you think flake switched? >> i think you should talk to him. >> senator graham. >> so, amy klobuchar speaking at the mikes that are set up as the senators are exiting. senator lindsey graham. let's watch. >> i think i know what happened. i hope some democrats will say if we do what jeff said that wou

were notified that trump wanted to nominate him for the highest court in the land that the family was grateful so a bit of news coming out of this press conference rose jordan thanks for that we will of course come back to you after we take a quick break to discuss the news conference a little bit more closely we'll also have more from the u.n. because actually the law going on there too that is it for this news hour stay with us i'm going to have more news for you in just a few minutes to stay with us. yep so oldest muslim undertakers working here is a seven days a week job that's grown with a community my father purchased a black ambulance one started to do the funerals in london and the family we saw stopping bothering to watch and we can is this the stories we don't often hear told by the people who the gift is such a level. east and undertakers this is europe on al-jazeera. october on al-jazeera. in a new season al-jazeera correspondent returns with more personal stories from our journalists from around the world. brazilians are getting ready for elections but the main presidenti

and decision on nominate? and what gunning mr. haines' role in crafting the interrogation policies? >> senator, i did not, i was not involved and am not involve in the questions about the rules governing detention of come, combatants. >> what about the documents relating to the administration's practices and policies on torture? did you see anything about that? did you first hear about that when you read about it in the paper? >> i think with respect to the legal justifications, or the policies relating to the trefl detainees, i was not aware of any issues on that or the legal memo that's came out until the summer, sometime in 2004 when there started to be news reports on that. this was not part of my docket in the office or staff secretary. >> i was not involved in questions about rules involving combatants. that was not part of my docket. his answers did end up being good enough for the senate. he got confirmed to the d.c. circuit court that year. typically that's the end of the story. after confirmation hea

we'll start on the floor, there is a supreme court nomination. it needs a lot of debate, they debate it two or three days. they don't have to start on the weekend. let's do this monday or tuesday, wait until the fbi is done. it depends on what mcconnell and flake agree to. trish: chad, stay with me. senator blumenthal from connecticut is speaking. >> all that said, let me be very blunt before we ended i was about to be recognized to make this point and motion that, this fbi investigation has to be real and penetrating, so that the truth and facts and evidence are all uncovered. this fbi investigation cannot be a show or a charade. it must be real and it must go to the witnesses who are likely to produce facts in evidence. >> senator, is it your understanding that flake had the assurances of other senators in his party before he decide to make this move? >> senator flake talked to a number of senators in his own party as well as on our side and i appreciate that he was seeking common ground. >> what can he and his colleagues do if the leadership d

i mean, if you had a nomin who was an outlyer and could have only been nominated by this president, then maybe it would be a different situation, but this is exactly the cien of mindidate you would expect to be te to the supreme court. >> woodruff: and just very quickly to you, neal katyal, how do you see the the president trump as he looms over these hearings? >> i think it's a huge deal. and we even saw senator cruz trying to make lemonade ut of lemons saying this is someone who has been ratify effectively because in 2016, trump t out a list of candidates of people he would nominate if h won the presidency. therefore, judge kavanaugh is ratified iby the amercan people. the only problem with that claim is judge kavanaugh was pt on lee list in 2017 after the who criminal investigation by mueller and stuff. i agree with paul, this is a very qualified person, deserves to be on every short list-- as does, by tt- way, paul clemen but the timing and the circumstance of this nomination are a bit odd. >> woodr: neal katyal, paul clement-- who just received a very nice compliment from your frien

the judiciary committee scheduled the vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination on friday. i hope that tomorrow's hearing gives us some guidance on how we are to vote. but those of us on the committee have to be prepared for the possibility, indeed, the likelihood that there will be no definitive answers to the large questions before us. in legal terms, the outcome might not be dispositive. while we can only vote yes or no, i hope that we in this body acknowledge that we don't have all the answers, we are imperfect humans. we will make imperfect decisions. this monumental decision will no doubt fit that description. up or down, yes or no, however this vote goes, i'm confident in saying that it will forever be steeped in doubt. this doubt is the only thing of which i am confident about this process. i say to all of my colleagues, for this process to be a process, we have to have open minds. we must listen. we must do our best, seek the truth in good faith. that is our only duty. thank you, madam president, i yield the floor. >> mr. president, today i filed a lawsuit related

this is your nomination. you are now embarking on this journey in this committee, denying us access to documents which were routinely provided for other judicial nominees. you had to have known that was taking place. >> senator, i think what justice scalia said in his hearing when he was asked about his office of legal counsel memos is the right thing which is that's a decision for the senate and the executive branch to work out. as a nominee, i will -- and there are long-term privileges and protections, as he mentioned, that were in effect for that discussion. and it's not for the nominee to make that decision. >> well, that is an interesting comment because the way you're being presented to the american people with only 10% of the public documentation that could be provided to this committee is going to reflect on you and your nomination. and of course you know that. >> well, i guess i, again, looking at the nominee precedent, senator, that was true in justice scalia's case. all his memos from 1974 to '77 w

i want judge kavanaugh's responses to my colleagues during his initial nomination hearings. i examined his judicial writings and past public statements. i reviewed the limited number of documents that republicans shared about judge kavanaugh's time working in the white house. what the totality of this record makes abundantly clear is that on issue after issue, judge kavanaugh has promoted a judicial philosophy that diminishes the rights of individuals, particularly women and people of color, puts corporations before people and promotes a partisan right wing ideology at odds with the will of the american people. but in addition to a record and an outlook that is disqualifying, there's judge kavanaugh's lack of credibility. even in his initial hearings, judge kavanaugh raised serious questions of his credibility about a lack of -- with his time in the starr investigation and questions about his response to multiple allegations of sexual assault he is now facing by evidenced by those who knew him coming forward to dispute his statements. mr. president, the eyes of the country a

these types of problems, with nominations or concerns about nominations usually arise in a much more discreet process much earlier in time. so it's not splashed all over the papers. but the questions that need to be asked. certainly about whether someone is fit to be a judge it's a lifetime appointment. if senators want a high level of comfort with the nomination. you're trying to get him to answer questions forthrightly to establish a factual record. that is true and hopefully exonerating. but you also want a witness, a nominee to come across as a person. not just a court of law. you're talking to the american people and connecting with the american people in a real way. is important. we earlier tonight talked about the thomas hearings. of course a lot of people remember how anita hill was handled. how thomas was handled and how he comported himself is a big part of that story and a big part of how he got confirmed. he used the phrase, the whole affair was a high-tech lynching, it resonated with people and partially explains the support he had in the african-american community at th