ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer. both of them are very interesting justices on the united states supreme court. they're our friends from the carter days. both were well-known liberals. before joining the bench, ginsburg had been the aclu's general counsel. breyer had been ted kennedy's chief counsel. but they were both well respected and had solid reputations on the court of appeals. i knew that and i helped them. so when president clinton called me in 1993 to ask my views on who he should nominate to the supreme court, i suggested ginsburg and breyer because i was sure he was going to pick the most left-wing nutcake that he could find. [ laughter ] they were certainly not the nominees i would have chosen had i been president but as ranking member on the senate judiciary at the time, i thought it was important to work with the white house to dial back the problemses with the confirmation process. and the bitterness that was existing. and the rankor that had been escalating for so long. to his credit, president clinto

so we can thank jimmy carter for both stephen breyer and ruth bader ginsburg. of course i say that in. they are both terrific people and highly respected jurists. i care for each one of them. even though they do role the wrong way sometimes. maybe, maybe quite a bit more than i care for. the time between nomination and confirmation for all four of president carter's d.c. circuit nominees was two to three months. a bit longer than stephen breyer had to wait but not all that much longer in the grand scheme of things. and what about the confirmation votes? as best i can tell from a research judge edwards and then judge ginsburg confirmed either by voice vote or unanimous consent. judge waltz confirmation vote was 77-21 with the majority of republicans supporting, supporting the nominee. her nomination. the closest vote 58-31. still a comfortable margin. after president carter came president reagan and for a while confirmations continued largely as before there were some close votes here and there but in the main nominees were confirmed relatively easily. and quick

breyer. they spoke at the atlantic festival in washington d.c. last week. altogether this runs about an hour and 25 minutes. [applause] >> everybody -- >> i'm going to get in big trouble. >> i've been wanting to get on that side of the couch this whole conference. he is always to my right. mr. secretary, thank you for joining us today. this is the anchor session, we will have other stuff going on. >> you could do better. >> let me start off. you know, i went through probably nine months of the presidents tweets last night. he doesn't tweet very much about you. are you disappointed? >> guest: that's a good thing. keeping a low profile, you know -- >> host: you didn't even make fear? >> guest: that's good. 40 years of public service so i've kind of been through the gambit of all the exposure and what have you. as i was sharing with you, the greatest job i ever had in my life was being made the governor of texas and i retired from that and had made the decision that i was done with public servic

here is part of the conference, beginning with supreme court justice stephen breyer. [applause] michael: good morning. i think the reason i have been asked to be on this stage with you is because normally, when you are on the stage, i am out there. they probably don't know that every year, the theater company does two mock trials of plays based on -- of trials based on some play we are doing in which the lawyers committee has come up with a subject, an issue in the play that is to be judged. or to be discussed. justice breyer: i am here because you are the producer of this great work of humanity and art. and i am the audience. [laughter] michael: well, thank you. but i would like to talk a little bit about why would you or justice ginsburg, or justice alito, why would you be interested in coming to a mock trial and talking about shakespeare and listening to arguments about shakespeare? justice breyer: why? because by having the mock trial and talking about shakespeare , it suggests we have a relationship with shakespeare. that is all to our credit to have any relation

ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer, both of them very interesting justices on the supreme court. they are friends from the carter days. both were well known liberals. --sburg had been we have clu had been the aclu general counsel. breyer had been ted kennedy's general counsel. they had reputations on the court of appeals. i knew that and helped them. when president clinton called in 1993 to ask my views on who he should nominate i said, ginsburg and breyer because he would not -- i would think you would pick the most left-wing nutcase he could find. they were certainly not the nominees i would have chosen had theen president, but as ranking member at the time, i thought it was important to try to work with the white house to dial back the problems with the confirmation process. the bitterness that was existing. the rank or that have been escalating for so long. to his credit, president clinton nominated justices ginsburg and breyer. they had smooth confirmations and processes and were confirmed overwhelmingly by both democrats and republicans. justice ginsburg's was 90-3. 87-9.e

i handled the supreme court nomination of stephen breyer which, at that time, was hardly controversial but looking back on it, it was a cakewalk. then i went from there to the clinton white house. i have seen this world as a former federal prosecutor, as a white house judiciary committee aid, and a white house lawyer. what did you think about the scope of what this white house gave the fbi looking into judge kavanaugh? guest: there is a lot that is not understood about the background check process. thought because i i should lay it out as someone who's been on both sides of this . background checks are not full-fledged criminal investigations. the fbi is a tool to look into the background of potential nominees. they serve a double purpose. first they help the president assad who to nominate. -- the president decide who to nominate. everyone has a basic fbi background check. of documents, and the fbi takes those, interviews people, and produces a background report. the president uses that, whoever the president is, as part of his dossier on who to nominate. then that file goes to the se

here is part of the conference, beginning with supreme court justice stephen breyer. [applause] michael: good morning. i think the reason i have been asked to be on this stage with you is because normally, when you are on the stage, i am out there. they probably don't know that every year, the theater company does two mock trials of plays

ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer were confirmed with a large bipartisan vote. i think it will be a cooling-off period. the senators have gotten it out of their system. the republicans were saying this can't happen again, this character assassination can't happen again. we will see if there is a democratic president and the appoint someone whom the republicans don't like or change the balance of the court. will they refrain from attacks? kaganave justice elena and sonia sotomayor -- they were not too tough on either of those justices when obama nominated them. they tend to go a little easier. my prediction is we see a cooling-off period. the reason this was such a contentious fight is it was so close to the midterm election following a very divisive presidential election. eventually it would alter the balance of the court -- potentially it would alter the balance of the court. divisivede, the most decision in recent history. it made it a perfect storm. i don't think it will be quite as nasty the next couple of times, but who knows? host: there are no permanent r

david souter, ruth bader , theyrg, stephen breyer were sworn in at the white house. in each case, i didn't go. i did swear in john roberts because i strongly approved of the appointment. i thought he was the appointment. i still think he is an excellent chief justice, even though i disagree with the number of his rulings, but he is a very fine person. i thought that if i did not go to the white house on his swearing in, it would create an impression that he did not approve of the appointment which was not true with the others. so i did go to the white house and swear him in at that time. and i think that was the right thing to do. >> the obama appointments were held in the supreme court. hon. stevens: yes. obama follow the correct practice in this regard. justice stevens wrote an opinion piece on a case that is somehow relevant, and that was the bill clinton versus paul a jones case. aur opinion basically said sitting president is not immune from civil prosecution or civil litigation, and can be held accountable while serving as president. the same way about a presid

he might even try to get kagan and stephen breyer on his side to form a majority for these decisions. >> i think that's right we saw that after justice scalia died and there was this centrist coalition. just because roberts is the medium though. he is a conservative but he's a - - it takes several cases to move in a particular direction so he is certainly not looking off the bat to overturn cases are set broad precedents. >> because he's the chief, he has an ability to steer opinions to certain judges who might write a more minimalist opinion. >> that's right point he only gets one vote but if he's in the majority, he will assign the writing. we have to be careful if it's five or six of the majority he makes an assignment and it turns out the other three or four things that's too narrow, he will lose his plurality effectively. >> right. appreciate you coming in. still ahead, the brett kavanaugh confirmation coming weeks before the midterm election. does it move the poll numbers and key races? we will ask karl rove, next. that's tough to do. schwab does it. next question. do you offer

for --s is celebrated include who attended stephen breyer and retired justice anthony kennedy. past, justices entered and exited through a side entrance. attendees also included attorney general jeff sessions and solicitor general knoll francisco.- noel >> we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! >> we believe christine ford! we believe anita hill! we believe christine ford! ,> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. monday morning, supreme court reporter for bloomberg news talks about the start of the new supreme court term. fox news political analyst juan williams on his new book, "what the hell do you have to lose: trumps war on civil rights." be sure to watch what she did journal, lie that 7:00 eastern -- sure to watch washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern. >> t

breyer. and the thoughtful opinion until light of the currency of these issues, respect of the presidency which we agreed with. respect means that his schedule must be protected, the district judge overseeing a grand jury investigation, what have you, must be very respectful of the president's needs. north korea, whatever it might and replacement for nikki haley. but doesn't mean the president gets a pass as many years. in light of that, unless the supreme court were to say, we were wrong in clinton versus jones, i don't expect that, imagine the hypothetical, the president and we are going to make it a hypothetical president that presidents tend to play golf. william howard taft started it. imagine the following situation we are out on the golf course ap the president in a fit of anger clubs his caddie. you have been laughing at me. i shanked the ball, so here, take that. the caddie wanders over to the emergency room, concussion. he said i'm going to call a lawyer. i'm going to sue that. i ca

stephen breyer clerked for arthur goldberg. and that gives us -- and elena kagan clerked for justice thurgood marshal. we now have a majority on the court that not just comes from elite ivy league background, but came up through the even more elite channels of supreme court law clerks. and then i know at one point, we had talked about the religious makeup of this court. justice kavanaugh, who is a catholic, secedes another catholic, anthony kennedy, and it's intriguing to know that on this supreme court, we have five catholics, three jewish justices, and one protestant. so really, kind of different than the makeup throughout the united states, brooke. >> incredible. the faces, the additions and thinking so many of them having clerked for other justices, speaking of clerks. joan, thank you. brett kavanaugh won confirmation by the slimmest margin ever for a u.s. supreme court justice, but now he will be making history in a much different way. he will be the first justice to be backed by all female law clerks. it is an achievement

i was poking around and actually when stephen breyer was nominated malcolm gladwell wrote a piece that mentions that he was arrested for underaged drinking at stanford. it is one line in a long profile that is utterly not relevant to the larger story of his qualifications for office upon nomination. the drinking subplot here runs into questions of credibility, did he lie, did he embrace a choir boy standard when he was more of a frat boy, but it does seem to me to be a distraction from the larger questions of sexual assault that were raised and so now we're talking about long ago arrest records for ice being thrown at a bar after a concert. it's i think a symbol of the degradation of the debate we've been hearing. >> i disagree. i think that if you are known as a belligerent, mean, fighting drunk that's relevant. i think that it's relevant to then a woman who says that you would corner her and put your hand over her mouth, somehow that, i think, makes more sense than if you were just a fun drunk who always fell right asleep. okay. so i think that it is relevant. i also think, josh, and

>> so, that moment, you're seeing 1993, ginsberg, the next year, stephen breyer, that was the very brief lull between, there was the storm with robert bork, clarence thomas, late ' 80s, early '90s. you had those sail through, but then there was a partisan war. it's where the title of this war comes from, red america, blue america, those concepts were born. and think about what ends the decade. what starts the new century. the near perfect tie presidential election of 2000, the protracted 36-day recount in florida and what settles that election finally, that highly disputed election, the supreme court in what looked like a very ideological very partisan in a lot of ways decision. and i think the court wars that we have seen since, you put that chart up a minute ago, some of the most -- you don't have 96-3 votes anymore. to sail through now is to have 40 no votes. and that's the new reality. >> and the supreme court is now part of it. the supreme court is the same kind of divided body that the senate and the house are. but i wonder if going back to this era, to the clinton era, was it bork

nobody asked who i think on the court most behaves in a way -- i think it would be stephen breyer and he is considered one of the liberals but to a certain extent roberts exhibit some of the traits i would hope for breyer and among them has voted to uphold more acts of congress than any of the others. i did hear alana kagan at a law school in california recently told students that in the tide court she would expect, didn't say hope, she would expect more minimalism, more gradualism, more restraint in much the way the court behaved in spring of 2016 and later 2016-2017 where the court had eight justices. >> that is why people are seriously talking about the value of an even number court. if madison jumped down here madison would say you want to force them to compromise, and institutional makers and that will force them to compromise. >> the idea that the party in power, trump says we have to hold the supreme court as if it is a superlegislature. the idea the party in power, the one that blocked merrick garland, the one that is ram rotting brett kavanaugh through confirmation, the idea

breyer. and the thoughtful opinion which i commander everyone in light of the currency of these issues, respect for the presidency, which we all very much agreed with, respect for the presidency means that his schedule must be protected and so forth, the district judge overseeing a grand jury investigation and what have you, must be very respectful of the presidents needs, north korea, whatever it might be, a replacement for nikki haley, whatever the object. object. you need to be very respectful but that doesn't mean the president gets a pass for however many years as many as seven to eight years. in light of that, unless the supreme court were to say we were wrong and clinton v. jones, i don't expect that, imagine a fault with hypothetical. this is indictment of the president. the president, we will make it a president trump presidents tend to play golf. eisenhower adjuster. no, hacked. imagine the fun situation they were out on the golf course and the president in a fit of anger clubs his

breyer. and the thoughtful opinion which i commend to everyone in light of these current issues respect for the presidency, which we all agreed with, respect of the president his schedule must be protected and the district judge overseeing a grand jury investigation or what have you must be very respectful of the president's needs, north korea, whatever it might be, replacement for nikki haley, whatever the possible, you need to be very respectful, but that doesn't mean the president gets a pass for however many years, as many as seven to eight years. in light of that, unless the supreme court were to say, we were wrong in clinton versus jones, i don't expect that, imagine the following hypothetical. this is on the indictment of the president. the president, and we're going to make it a hypothetical president, presidents tend to play golf, they just do. eisenhower, i guess started it. no, william howard taft started it. anyway, imagine the following situation, we're out on the golf course and

and justin stephen breyer. the driver has a distinguished publication he has also written extensively for other audiences. he was a contributing editor. they served on the board for the american constitution society. and the counterweight to the federalist society. his work has been cited in many publications including the new york times the usa today the washington post and the los angeles times. please welcome our two featured authors. will you share with the audience the core arguments that you present in your respective pieces. what led you to these projects why do you think they are important in this contemporary moment in if your background speaks to how you got to those pieces as well please elaborate. >> the core argument of my book is that the supreme court has played a central role in shaping the public schools. to understand the public school without thinking about the supreme court. my interest in this work goes back a long way. it either took me four years to write this book depending on how you co

breyer, of elena kagan, of sonia sotomayor to the supreme court. these justices were confirmed overwhelmingly, and they were confirmed with a lot of votes from members of both political parties. it doesn't have to be as contentious as it always is, but in this instance with republican nominees, with conservative nominees, the left has been unwilling to allow the process to even move forward as it shouldn't as -- and has chosen instead to smear these individuals and to treat them in an unkind, undignified manner. no mother and no father would want to see a son or a daughter subjected to this kind of treatment, not in our country, not for a position like this. no one would want that. it does not have to be this way. if we can correct course, if we can figure out that we have in some ways been working with a broken thermostat. if we can acknowledge the fact that in trying to make things better, sometimes we make them worse by bringing more power to washington and then handing this power over to unelected bureaucrats and judges. we can do this. we can

justice sotomayor: i guess -- stephen g. breyer breyer: what do you think? that is, what does the state think about the standard, which perhaps would be an addition to ford or panetti, which was mentioned, if the two -- and it's not exclusive, but if two things are true; one, he does not recall his crime; and, second, he has a severe inability to orient himself to time or place, which means the kinds of things that were described. yes, i recognize you today; tomorrow i can't, not a clue, not a clue where anything is, though sometimes he answers the right questions. that's what i mean by that. but you heard the words. so judging going back to the eighth amendment and using the rationale of ford, not the words, and panetti, is there a -- would you accept the fact that such a person cannot be executed under the eighth amendment? and, if not, what's the difference? your honor, the difference is -- is that, under ford and panetti, madison has an understanding of what matters. justice breyer: no, no, i'm not saying -- i understand that the words i just used are di

justice stephen breyer is 80. there will be no swing justice in the mold of anthony kennedy, sandra day o'connor, or lewis how jr.. -- lewis powell jr.. the court will contest of two distinct blocks. the court in other words will reflect the deep polarization of the american public and the political system. shelley is joining us from oregon. democrats line. will all of this impact how you will vote? caller: i just want to say that the republicans did not even give merrick garlic -- merrick garland a hearing. trump has a right to choose who he wants, but i do not like the way they do it because it seems to go against the law. i just want to say that i do not know how they get away with it. i have no idea. i do not like what they are saying about the democrats because they did what they could. anyway, but thank you. host: is fired up the republican base like no one has ever seen rights russell. thanks to the democrats for uniting the party three weeks before the midterms. on the independent line from madison berg, p

breyer. at that time it was hardly controversial, but can back it was a cakewalk. from there i went to the clinton white house. prosecutor, white house judiciary aid, and white house lawyer. there's a lot that is not understood about the background check process. i wrote a piece this week in thought because i i should lay it out as someone who's been on both sides of this . background checks are not full-fledged criminal investigations. the fbi is a tool to look into the background of potential nominees. they serve a double purpose. first they help the president assad who to nominate. -- the president decide who to nominate. everyone has a basic fbi background check. of documents, and the fbi takes those, interviews people, and produces a background report. the president uses that, whoever the president is, as part of his dossier on who to nominate. then that file goes to the senate and forms the basis for the senate's advise and consent function. it's never a full-fledged criminal process. y

the one that struck me the most was justice stephen breyer who has always been close to justice o'connor. he spoke to her directly about how much she had meant to him. is is clearly somebody who very much missed among her colleagues. host: your story mentions that because of her condition and her being a justice on the supreme court, it allowed her to have some type of office space or chamber at the court. can you tell our viewers more about that? guest: retired justices are allowed to keep the chambers. they often have a law clerk who helps them out and sometimes also works for the other justices. she has given up that chamber now to retired justice kennedy. that was kind of an early indication that she might be stepping back from her public role. host: when it comes to her time on the court, what are the highlights for the justice? justice that we may not have going forward. she was a justice who was very much in the middle of the court who decided cases often on a very fact specific nature. she would decide, for example, whether a holiday display violated the constitution based on rat

the one that struck me the most was justice stephen breyer who has always been close to justice o'connor. he spoke to her directly about how much she had meant to him. is is clearly somebody who very much missed among her colleagues. host: your story mentions that because of her condition and her being a justice on the supreme court, it allowed her to have some type of office space or chamber at the court. can you tell our viewers more about that? guest: retired justices are allowed to keep the chambers. they often have a law clerk who helps them out and sometimes also works for the other justices. she has given up that chamber now to retired justice kennedy. that was kind of an early indication that she might be stepping back from her public role. host: when it comes to her time on the court, what are the highlights for the justice? justice that we may not have going forward. she was a justice who was very much in the middle of the court who decided cases often on a very fact specific nature. she would decide, for example, whether a holiday display violated the constitution based on rat