>> welcome and thank you all for joining us this evening for the conversation the judicial nomination process what's the

future. i'm the director of strategic engagement at the american constitution society and i have the distinct privilege of working on the very relevant and dynamic topic of judicial nominations and amplifying the importance of the court to the issues near and dear to all of us. we believe the wall should be a force to improve the lives of all people. a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, we work for positive change by shaping the vitally important legal and constitutional issues and we have networks olawyers and polil across the country dedicated to those ideas. i encourage you to visit the website, acs wall.org, attend the event and get involved in the local chapters all across the country. for those of you here in dc, please get in touch with our chapter and many of the leaders are here in the room this evening and are happy to speak with you more.

we also ask those of you on social media to follow us on twitter, please follow us and for dc lawyer chapter. they will be live with this event and we encourage you to join the chapter in using the hash tag acstalk and you can view photos at the truckers instead ran page at @acsdc. i want to take a moment to thank the chapter. they've been steadfast in their attention to the courts and the issues of the nomination. contributing to the research effort and i'm also deeply grateful to the entire chapter and in particular susan for hosting this exciting conversation this evening. and a special thank you to christine and the entire

leadership conference on the human rights for hosting us here tonight and they're beautiful space. the importance of the courts and judges cannot be overstated. the judges on the front line of defending the rule of law and they decide cases every single day on issues that we all care about from immigration to who can enter the country to reproductive healthcare access to voting rights to consumer protection to clean water. while much attention has been focused on the supreme court, there are nearly 900 judges that serve on the u.s. district and circuit court of appeals and they decided the vast majority of cases. it's also important to consider closely who's been nominated because quite often these are the judges who are considered fowere consideredfor the futuret vacancies for example, the justice elevated to the supreme court last year had previously served on the tenth circuit court of appeals. we have a president who regularly denigrates the

judiciary and individual judges and we have a senate minority leader and judiciary committee chair rushing their consideration of the president's nominee. right now there are more than 150 current and known future vacancies on the federal court which represents nearly 20% of the federal judiciary. this is by design after they took the step of holding the supreme court seat they also kept open more than 10 100 of tl work for vacancies and hope that they could confirm nominees they were confident in to fill their agenda and recently there've been proposals on calling on congress to dramatically expand the number so that this administration could kill more of them to reverse the judicial legacy of president obama. at the white house and senate majority have been interrupted to staff the courts and today the senate has confirmed 23

lifetime judicial appointments one as we know to the supreme court and 12 to the circuit court of appeals and by comparison in the first year in office the senate only confirmed 13 charges, three of them to the circuit court. this administration has been aggressive naming nominees often without competition from senators and they've been endorsed by some three incredibly troubling nominees. however the concerning trends we've seen remain in some of the others. nominees for example who lack the legal experience or in the jurisdiction they had been nominated and come from strong ideological backgrounds and made deeply troubling public and sometimes anonymous statements and they may not have received a qualified earning from the standing committee on federal judiciary or they were not fully

forthcoming in their questionnaire were hearing. many senators tried to be a check on the administration and asserted responsibility to provide advice and consent by withholding their pink slips. he would be the sole arbiter of whether the nominee moves forward. here to talk about this and more as the panel of amazing women working with them in many of our incredible partners and many that are in the room tonight is a true honor. they are all relentless, fiercely smart, funny and true experts on this topic. so to introduce the panel is

jennifer, the white house correspondent and congressional reporter for the huffingtonpost, one of the most astute reporters whose only covered the judicial nomination process and is able to seemingly be really funny about the delving into a lot of the various aspects of this otherwise sometimes mundane process with incredible perspective and so we are so thankful for chen and the panel for being here. thank you. >> hello. welcome to the judicial nominations. make the title with the wealth. i will introduce the panelists. seated next to me is kristin clark, th the president and executive director of the lawyers committee for civil rights under law and sitting next to her is christine executive vp for policy at the leadership conference on civil and human rights and on the end is the director of strategy.

so, to jump right in, between all of your backgrounds and wealth of knowledge on judges and the wall and years of experience combined covering the judicial branch, how would you summarize the last year in one word in terms of the judicial nominations? one word. >> earth shattering. >> i guess that is one word. >> hyphenated. [laughter] >> i gave you these questions in advance. you can tell the people that have tried this. my one word i would use is revealing. >> have you been surprised at all by the last year on the style of nominating and rushing

people through the process and i guess by style he's been very fast, sloppy in his judicial picks have been heavily shaped by the groups with federalist society. is this what you expected a year or so ago? >> as a civil rights lawyer, the courts matter and i think that the courts matter for all americans. they play an incredibly important role in american life. there tends to be able to focus on the united supreme court that the reality is there's just a few cases that get hurt an heard resolved by the supreme court. there are tens of thousands of cases that move through the federal district and circuit courts that touch every aspect of our lives and i think that historically we have seen the president respect the integrity

of the courts and sometimes they invite and debate nominees who sometimes are polarizing that historically we've seen presidents but with nominees who can garner some degree of bipartisan support and that hasn't been the case with president trump's nominees, and i think that is because he has been so focused on putting forth radical ideologues who call far from outside th of the mainstre. there are people of low caliber we saw with matthew peterson and he's been relentless in putting forth young white men for vacancies that exist across the federal court and i think that is a shame. white men make up about 31% of the u.s. population but have represented the lion's share more than 80% of the president's

nominations. so i think that sends a really dangerous message to americans, latinos, the lg bt community. people that represent the highest levels of their profession and could occupy the courts, so what we are seeing from president trump i think is different from anything we have seen from a president in modern times. >> so is this what you expected heading into the trump administration tax >> i knew things would be bad but i didn't think they would be that extreme and that is what we have seen from this president, just nominees who are incredible outliers who hold these views on civil rights issues and about lg bt people and who have dedicated their lives to opposing civil

rights. these are the kind of people she's focused on with laser position on putting into these lifetime positions on the court. >> i probably shouldn't surprise us that he's moved as quickly or that they are as extreme because during the campaign when he was trying to convince republicans to choose him as their nominee, he used judges and judicial nominations as a way to prove his ideology and that he was worthy of their support and during that process, he bragged about and got applause on litmus tests about judges he would nominate if he became president and he also outsourced the election process to the right-wing interest groups and when i think -- we have seen already that they are not very good at getting. or maybe they are good at it and

it depends on whether you think there is a bug or a future of his judicial nomination. but during the campaign, then candidate trump made the judicial nominations and he wanted to remain in court and having that this test on reproductive freedom and guns. he bragged about it and got applause lines on it and indicated he was going to do this outsourcing that he has done. i don't think tha so when we sat he expected that there would be people blogging or that they would be so extremely heartfelt individuals. i think the courts matter enormously that we are surprised at how hostile to civil rights have been. i think that the expected given the campaign promises that they would be extreme but i'm not sure that we expected those

dimensions. >> my choice for on of the one d which was a one-word answer, goldstar thank you is in terms of revealing i think in many ways they've revealed much about itself and in many ways republicans have revealed about themselves how they conducted themselves and i think i completely agree that many people have their merits of whether you agree or not they were willing to hold their nose and vote for trump because of the court and to see what mitch mcconnell was willing to do with respect when president obama was in office, we've always talked about the fact that there has been an intensity gap between our view of the world into those on the other side and understanding they have been lighting and waiting for this moment. this is the payoff and so in some ways i am not surprised by

the caliber of the nominee in part because certainly the community knew what they were getting and frankly i somehow suspect president trump isn't reviewing these nominees carefully when deciding that there are individuals who absolutely knew this is part of what they would get by signing onto this agenda and so to the extent is this a function of no vetting or very careful vetting and they will kee would keep tht nominees like this which makes this story so interesting and i am sure we will get to that in terms of whether or not again what is the exception and what is the new norm, but i think that it does demonstrate there is an unwillingness to serve in that role of the check and balance and i think that in some ways is the most troubling revelation over the last year

and we've seen some unlikely defenders of the court but i don't know if i would have put senator kenzie from louisiana on my list and making at least some defense debate could attempt to defend the liberty of the court. i wish the lists were more of course but i do think that this is a snowball that's picked up momentum as its rolled down the hill. >> how has trump already changed the federal bench when obviously he got to supreme court nominee confirmed which is what a lot of people focus on the most, but he's got and how many district and supreme court nominations? >> 12 circuit court nominees which is a record in fact i have to say that it's more than any president has gotten confirmed in their first year since the courts were created in 1891, 12 nominees in one year. that is amazing. but what do you think the biggest impact is coming is at

the supreme court or some of these circuit court judges, do you have any thoughts on that? >> i think that we have to look at the full picture. the inabilitthe ability to appoy so early on in his tenure was significant and now we are already seeing that he is closely aligned with justice thomas on a number of cases and is proving to be a justice who matches the ideological litmus test that the president has been using for nominees across the board, if a test case t test shy the foundation and federalist society. this is a president all about identifying those who are going to bring with them a goal of very narrowly reading the constitution and rolling back a lot of the protections that we

see emerge from the courts in the past decade. so the supreme court is just the tip of the iceberg and i think that he's moved forward at a lightning pace confirming a record number of charges to the district and circuit courts and youyear number one. the former charge of the southern district of new york offered a lot of commentary about what president trump is doing with respect to the judicial nominations and i think that she's right when she's identified this as perhaps his lasting legacy because these are younger judges that will be there for decades issuing rulings on issues that impact all aspects of american life and not just on voting rights in the criminal justice and discrimination and fair housing and corporations and issues that touch all aspects of our lives,

so i think we are already seeing and feeling the impact and this president has been really racing forward and moving nominees that have exceeded any other president in recent time. >> i agree with everything sad. i will go to the earlier point about making the courts whiter and more mail and reversing that trend that we have been seeing on diversifying the judges who serve in communities that should reflect those that they serve i thinthink there will be a lastig legacy as well tha but the other thing i would say is nominating a seat held hostage and then lowering the threshold for the votes so when they changed the rule instead of having the 60 vote threshold down to 50 even though it was made by the senators, it was neat because president trump chose some of

the divisive. there wasn't an interest in nominating someone who would get strong bipartisan support so i think one of the lasting legacies is that from now on a simple majority will confirm future supreme court justices so as impactful as i think that he would be, i also think that it's a long-term legacy at that. >> i think one of the other way as we are seeing the change already felt is for example when he was at a confirmation hearing and gave his lipservice to the rule of law and at the first opportunity that it was made available to him, then he decided the marriage equality decision didn't in fact answer the question of whether or not marriage should same-sex couples were entitled to be on their same birth certificate notwithstanding the language

itself that talks about birth and death certificates. i'm not sure how about missed his attention but one of the things i think we see him doing and that is going to ripple down with the kind of nominees dc getting confirmed to the court of appeals is basically sending up a flare saying try it and see if you can get away with it. it is an emboldening of individuals who again will go through the confirmation process and feel sympathetic to the frustration that has been expressed perhaps more colorfully than i can on television by senator white house, although he usually keeps it clean, but this notion that we have individuals who we know exactly why they have been nominated. and as noted, one in three has explicitly blatantly anti-credentials that have been nominated not in spite of but because of that and on any of this would've matrix you can look at individuals and find out about the nomination of far in

north carolina of the outrage of the nomination and yet instead that is part of how he jumped ahead, so i do think there is an attempt to sort of signal a new day and we will see the arguments become more outlandish and potentially positions from lower courts becoming more outlandish because there's been this sort of signaling of things that were considered settled may not be any more. >> so let's talk about the diversity of the nominees. i know as of late november, he nominated 54 white judges, three american indian judges, one latino judge and one black judge. that is in a year. only 19% of them are women, so as the panelists noted that leaves a whole bunch of straight white guys in line to become judges, so my question is obviously that looks bad from a

diversity standpoint, but i want you to dig in a little bit and tell me what that means to regular people what effect does that have on the cases that are decided all across the country by federal judges who are consistently straight white men what does that mean? >> on a basic level, they are basic chords that serve the american people and reflect the diversity of the country and the communities they serve. it is a travesty to see if the nominees advanced over the past year that in no way reflected america today. we have to remember in the courts right now there is a lot of work that needs to be done for the historical underrepresentation of women and minorities who served as judges. during the tenure, obama put forth about 320 or so judges and 42% of them were women, 19% of

them were african-american and about 10% were latino. that is a lot of work in progress that we are now reversing. we have a president who essentially is turning the clock back to the jim crow era when it comes to nominations for the federal court and it sends a dangerous message to the public. we want a public that can have confidence in the outcomes produced by courts. we want the public to feel that the courts are served by judges who are fair and impartial and moreover, we find chords that are represented by judges who bring a diversity of perspective so that they can truly handle and wrestle with the issues that come before them and cases that concern immigrants rights, reproductive rights. the business that goes before the court's demands that we have judges that bring with them a diversity of perspectives, so it

is a travesty what we are seeing from this president. >> there was a hearing a couple of years ago talking about the influence even if there is just one woman on a three-judge panel how it affects the boat and crew on those panels so it is about the influence of just adding the one element of diversity on the panel and so that just shows as an example how it can move the needle in terms of the outcome. >> it dramatically affected them it wasn't just a stud the studyw the female judges rule but it's a study to show the influence on the panels and so they can dig it up and put it on their stack but it was on a committee hearing about five years ago and it was one of those moments

where we talk about confidence in the court which is so important especially at the time where people have grown to understand systemic bias and they have this trust in institutions and government but also i think it's interesting to not just think about it for diversity's sake but also how it impacts the other establishment within the court said it was just a study that i never thought of that influence the other people on the panel and it was something that the lawyers here might care of. >> i think the only thing i would add is that it's important in and of itself to make sure we are having this conversation about who is and who will be there making these decisions with which the criminal justice system or immigration system thinking about the power of these positions and what does it mean to be consolidate debt back

into the hands of a narrow select group of straight white men but i also think it's important for us to have that extra conversation about what are we seeing? we are seeing individuals that are comfortable to sending and maybe busines business advisor , the kind of people we are seeing is on top of the troubling nature of the lack of diversity and the fact that we are on top of that seeing individuals drawn from such extreme viewpoints and organizations i think further undermines individual's confidence in the same way that you could potentially have a nonracist all-white police force are the chances of people actually feeling as though it is working with the community and targeting the community is going to be undermined if the police didn't click the community they are serving. there is no reason it's any

different and i think the stakes are even higher when you think about the unilateral authority that many of the judges exercise every day. >> one more point on diversity, the senate judiciary committee. many of us remember back in 91 when clarence thomas was having hearings and it was all white men on the senate judiciary committee. it was really interesting this week to see how that's changed. on wednesday, you have an appellate judge being questioned about several sexual harassment cases and had female senators questioning this judge about why wasn't this outrageous behavior, why wasn't this illegal, why didn't you find this clearly troubling contacts to the sexual harassment. and it was such an interesting dramatic moment is you have a female senator after female senator asking this type of question of a male judge who's been serving for a long time. but it's just to be dynamic

compared to 91 when they were questioning and it was stark. it was stark. someone did a side-by-side and you would see that at least in the senate we've come a long way but which also reminds you that this were still talking about a white male judge and the prism that he was viewing these cases. >> the other game changing development this week was the appointment to the senate judiciary committee which is such a critically important committee because it is the committee tasked with initially vetting and fitting properly all of these judicial nominees that are being put forth. i think it's important that we have diversity at every level of government and i'm really i am y pleased that we've now gone from one african-american having ever served on the committee in its more than 200 year history to three this week with the appointment of looking to play a

critical role with race and civil rights as we move forward but let me add a personal debate on the discussion we are having right now. as the mother of a 13-year-old black boy, there is something troubling with what we are seeing with this administration. and the inclination into without hesitation puts white men for judgeships and u.s. attorneys in critical positions across the administration it sends a really dangerous message i think to children of color and minority communities generally. the message is that they are not qualified and they cannot make

the cut. they can never be worthy of such important roles like a justice on the court were becoming a u.s. attorney. .. >> howard nielsen made the argument that a gay judge shouldn't have to recuse himself from hearing himself is important to put that in contacts with a trump president that feels he can disparage a mexican american judge and say he's on were they.

to say that an aspect of their identity makes them bias is not only sort of the signaling of what it means in terms of professional aspirations but the flipside that is buys that we need to protect ourselves from is supposed to be met must be part of the judicial system. >> to have any really fortysomething gain lesbian judicial nominees? so let's talk about some of his specific nominees. some are particularly colorful or worrisome.

who knew each of you think is one of trump's most dangerous or bizarre judicial nominees? i have my choice already. brett is or was a district court nominee, 36-year-old never try to case his wife was married to the white house chief of staff who oversees the president's judicial nominees and rights oral bottles on the side and used to be a paranormal investigator. this was a nominee for district court c. he was to his name and embarrassment for all of those reasons. >> at least there was some kind of check raven someone who had all those credentials or qualities the sky made it to a hearing didn't he?

so this is the caliber of someone who needed to his senate judiciary confirmation hearing and had to bow out and embarrassment for many the reasons i said. is there anyone he stands out like this person is insane or dangerous for the greater good. >> we know there are more matthew peterson's out there. >> can you tell people who he is. >> his nomination went out of flames when senator white house of louisiana, senator kennedy make clear is somebody that didn't know about the federal rules of evidence. he had not tried cases are conducted depositions. he did not have the basic legal experience that you tend to see

from otherwise qualified nominees who are put forth. it, seeing accidental that he was exposed. this is a senate process that has really been railroading nominees through at a fast pace and not properly examining the records. there are more petersons out there. it's important that the senate slowdown stop attempting to push for the circuit court nominees in one day which is not something we have historically seen they need to come through who these people are figure out if they been honest and transparent we've seen nominees who have failed to make disclosures so i hope they can

identify the others that have been put forth but the one nominee i would underscore as being dangerous and he was renominated by trump last week is thomas bar. he's been nominated for a bake vacant seat north carolina, district roughly 30% african-american and never have an african-american judge confirmed in this 140 plus year history. during the obama tenure there's two african-american women's put forward they have now been replaced from the likes of thomas bar. he dedicated his career to

defending a voter suppression in north carolina. he was the judge that the court of appeals found to discriminate against minority voters with surgical precision. he defended the state in racial gerrymandering cases he defended an employer who said women with children did not have a place in the workplace. there is a case involving a car dealership that discriminated against african-americans. at every stage of his career he has been deeply opposed to civil rights. when it comes to voting rights in particular the level of has delivered a has been pronounce.

there are many. >> he was a lawyer for jesse helms and represented him at a moment when the campaign was accused of having voter intimidation against african-americans. there's questions about if he is truthful about his ties to the campaign when he first came before the committee. i think it's important that the senate slowdown and review this nominee is been opposed by many who i do not believe would be fair and impartial if he is appointed to the bench. think you'd work to overturn cases in the voting rights

space. so thomas bar put forth as the most dangerous nominee today. i totally agree with kristen. this is a perfect example chosen because it was a feature not a bug. not something they weren't aware. this is how the nominee earned the nomination in the state. any one who cares about quarter suppression this is the number one. a lot of bias some problematic things. he stands alone was history plus

recency. not only misleading the committee his campaign sent out 100,000 postcards about communities that the election was a different day it could be punished for voter fraud. >> it's a notorious case. he was asked directly under a if he was involved in it. he wasn't questioned as extensively as peterson was. they had not had a chance to question. he may have misled the committee that something traveling in his back on the senses hearing

people have come out ring out to new members should have a right to question thomas and a new hearing. i completely agree, chemists a few others i was a kill duncan because his been nominated for the fifth circuit is a trifecta. he is he has a terrific record with voting rights. he is also made it his personal mission in life to denigrate her

families to target transgender children single-handedly pushed campaigns who are trying to let their life and go to the bathroom in high school and peace. he's also the master might be hind hobby lobby and this idea that religious people have a license to discriminate if you are not consistent with the view. that decision was troublesome because it was a for-profit employer whose religious beliefs was going to override the ability of a woman to use her employer-provided health insurance to access contraception. if it's better worse that is got so many things going for him. when you think of all the ways he stands opposed to the

fundamental silver rights. he is the brain behind theories that have been percolating for the last 20 years. he believes that so truly in its core, he couldn't even eat got the non- answers that they know to say. there are times when he said i probably wouldn't abide by precedent. we know that this is what he and many other individuals there's little snowflake, we cut out five mark mott. because it has the ability to affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people most in need of defense for the things that we seem like a mississippi where they are sanctioning.

to have someone who is fundamentally opposed to lgbt dignity and equality plus being part of the voter suppression team. i agree is horrifying. kill duncan is also the face of many forces we been fighting and have been emboldened to come to the surface of the trump era. >> let's talk about the american bar association. they've had a central role in evaluating the since 1989. more than 1700 judicial nominees. it is rare when they decide somebody is unanimously not qualified to be a judge. there's a panel of like 15 people who thoroughly evaluate

this nominee. they talk to people they know they do exhaustive work. one year and trump has four judicial nominees rated is not qualified. to unanimously not qualify. one was stephen who was confirmed by the senate. >> he was rated not qualify unanimously for bias. he was also being gratuitously rude, his temperament. >> i have not seen that in the 15 years usually the rating is a

minimal professional qualification. doesn't look at your ideology, this was a really rare and unusual rating. they interview people locally who know the reputation of the nominee. normally people are hesitant to say such things because the odds of you being confirmed anyway are high. people are trying to decide whether to say this guy has a bad temperament my think twice if they can appear in front of him. >> they interview more than hundred 80 people and they reported some had unusual feel fear for it repercussions even though they were anonymous. they were still terrified that stephen who had deep connections could somehow get back to them

was this person yet he was concerned. what does that tell you about the system? >> what i have observed trying to distinguish how this was not a big deal as they just have this as an institution. they cling to it and then they rank gorsuch well-qualified, they're happy to use it as a credential when it supports them. also they did not let the aba testify at the hearing. the person who does the evaluation is usually testifying at the same hearing so senators can say how many people did you interview so senator grassley is the chairman today and let the aba testify tempering you sleep.

so they discounted the rating. this was us dunning moment. this was a very specific and troubling thing if you care that judges should be a impartial. the lawyers certainly understand how fundamental that was. so what they said this year was that's not something they're going to take into consideration. i'm afraid of what precedented set. i don't think you get well-qualified that's enough. the fact that they found not qualified for bias should not have given a lifetime nominee to him. >> you're being specific about the fact that one of the bias was the it ability to give fair

injustice to lgbt americans. that message was not lost on us. it shows how much work needs to be done because the only way in which will change this dynamic is to have the same level of outrage among those who are on capable of a transgender it against and to say transgender are part of this. that cannot be the only thing that enough to get disqualified. yet we see a willingness to move to an attack on the aba. it's a signaling that bias against lgbt litigants doesn't really bother anybody that much.

that's why we have double down on our work. many communities rely on the courts, the lgbt walked towards greater equality has been very much informed by the opportunity to make her case in court and not with the shucks we didn't know, but having that information laid out in the to be confirmed is a very revealing development. >> it's important to remember the american bar association is one that is been around forever. virtually every lawyer belongs. it is a nonpartisan organization.

the ratings they have been producing judges have relied on for decades, since eisenhower. george w. bush was an exception to that. so we have an administration changing rules and standards to put forth these dangerous nominees. it's shameful this administration announced it would not take into consideration the ratings that have been provided but i also want to lift up the numbers. between 89 and 2006 they rated more than 1800 nominees. only two found not qualified. and under this administration we've seen for that have been deemed not qualified. that includes charles goodwin

was fun not qualified for his work habits. >> by work habits is said he did show up to work. until midafternoon and then holly who was nominated for sitting kansas was deemed not qualified because her lack of trial court experience. this comes back to the caliber of nominees. it was almost accidental that matthew peterson got smoked out and exposed. so for the senate slow down and take the time to evaluate the records underlying these nominees. >> speaking of changes, trump has shown that when a court ruled against him which happened on his travel ban and is ban on transgender the judicial system

hears him on the dockier ruling this week. he said just shows how broken and on para court system is. when the opposing side almost always wins this is the president of the united states have you ever heard of past presidents doing something like this would affect you think that has you think people here this i think that's is hope. i think he's trying to tear down any institution that will hold him accountable. whether it's the press records, or special counsel.

there's a lot of putting trust in anything. he has had loss after loss we saw that during the campaign for being a latino claiming that he could not be impartial against trump and trump university when this had fought against drug cartels and protecting law-enforcement, it was stunning. most surprising as you do not hear that much outcry from

judges. i thought you might hear the chief justice say something or hear how damaging that can be to our justice system i think he's going to start talking about the grand jury and whatever judge is involved involving a russia investigation. and it's damaging to the confidence in the system. >> i sometimes talk about constitutional -- it doesn't demonstrate respect for the judiciary. a separate branch of government to provide a system of checks and balances and whether it's putting forth unqualified

nominees are not having respect for the careful and pronounced judgments made by sitting judges. it's deeply troubling and demonstrates a lack of respect at the end of the day. >> i was a justice department lawyer until very recently when the definition of justice changed under my feet. one of the things i worry about is that i used to be able to speak about public service as a fulfilling thing. i worry so deeply about the men and women who are trying to hold on and continue to perform public service in the face of these attacks. young people who will no longer think there someone who could be

a judge. who wants to be part of a government that speaks this way about the court. the fact that there is no meaningful pushback have moments when he makes the statement so deeply disappointed moment any realize that is something will have to spend a lot of time in men energy healing. these are not institutions that seem to matter. he undermines the integrity of the presidency. it's going to be a very important process to us to stay engaged in this moment and speak out and call out the un-american nature that were hearing and

understand the magnitude of the work we have to do to repair the damage. >> is someone who covers judicial nominations have been more surprised by the senate republicans have been quiet and gone along with whatever. if were talking about judges they can just move along they could be objectively worrisome or not qualified. what you make of that? it's like there's a machine in place just to get nominees through this very little criticism and very troubling nominees from a nonpartisan standpoint to feel more surprised by that?

here we are year-end and you'll see mitch mcconnell saying one thing but there's no critical thought for analysis of why a nominee could be trouble troubling. >> we are living in an era of hyper- partisanship right now. from where i sit on the outside looking in the congress deeply divided and difficult to find moments where congress can move forward and find supports on both sides of the aisle on things like immigration reform and what we do with these daca recipient's. it's not just judges there is a

political stalemate that is unfortunate and dangerous. i'm not quite sure how you change that. when he congress to figure out how to work together in a bipartisan way. we need the senate that will step up and do his job and there just to have been glimmers of hope as we've seen with matthew peterson, the senator from colorado has said he will not move forward on any nomination because of jeff sessions stance on marijuana which apparently is a reversal of the commitment this administration made to him to respect the stance and marijuana use.

in deeply pessimistic. >> i went to go back and try to figure out the lessons learned. >> not only the hearing but he get a straight party line vote. so he was pending on the floor for months before the withdraw happen. when the news first broke trimming grassley was urging the withdrawal. we found senator shelby had withdrawn his support all it takes in my view is one or two republican senators, they can do private clear publicly. they held the keys to whether a nominee gets vetted. with senator kennedy show the

world, that is what independence looks like. that's what a real lawyer should do in a hearing when he suspects someone is unqualified. i love to see the video being played out as bias. i hope they start talking about qualifications that include a record of bias. i think he gets so much attention that there is some glimmer of hope it could cause others to act more. the racial the senate got tighter after the alabama election. not only takes two republicans to sink a nominee. there are some independent-minded republican senators. more attention gets paid for

these. i think there's press report after press report. her lack of disclosure of employment of being mary the senate questionnaire found under oath directly said identified all family members that could pose a conflict of interest. he did not identify his five who post a conflict of interest. not that would've been disqualified but you have to disclose it. you also didn't disclose the kkk. this is a man whose embedding judicial nominees and telling them how to -- the report has

stepped up to. in the knowledge of all the controversy helps to. >> so my glass half-full moments is that i hear reports talk about how mark noris xenophobic and racist nominee is including his day job but then i also realize that up until the passage of the tax bill the only thing that senate republicans could get done and to the extent they hold the powers of -- and hear the clocks ticking, i worry that we'll face another true -- of nominations because there's an i'm at the time they could be running out.

i'm hopeful will see a different dynamic. one thing that is amazing about senator harris is that she can break down a witness. to the extent we have the theater senator grassley has structured these hearings to try to prevent that from happening by stacking multiple hearings are having three sessions in a day. to the extent we have strong voices and smart people making sure those messages are amplified, i think we'll see the worst of the worst people back. two of the nominees were identified for having terrible records their names did not appear on the renomination list. we know nothing is ever truly

dead. but i think you start to see some of these nominees not renominated or moved to the back that could be assigned there is a recognition that losing is not worth the political clout. >> the ratios now 51 to 49, an extremely slim margin. which republicans are you looking at now is your key republicans that might be more reasonable or more. >> senator kennedy is the only republican that has voted against a child nominee kennedy voted against -- he sediment has been here through transition.

he was confirmed over senator kennedy. that's a first. senator mccain voted against an executive nominee because of his views on torture. nelson who i mentioned earlier worked with bradberry to excuse torture the bush administration. we will be watching to see if senator mccain feels the same way of this judicial nominee as he differ stephen bradberry. those are two that have shown signs. susan collins voted against another one. he was very controversial judge on the trump shortlist. that's not the person willing to

say that person should not be confirmed. >> one of the things i will say is that it will be interesting to see a willingness to distance oneself from the president. they're different ways in which republicans can exert their influence. like when someone is actually forced to a vote. there are other ways which will see republicans hopefully exercising leadership to the extent they're not ready to engage they encourage you to find that reserve. that means having the conversations with grassley in the later to say don't make me vote on someone like this that's how some of these nominees wind

up falling away. that's important as well. while every nominee we defeat on the basis of lack of qualifications is important, it's going to be extremely important for the health of this nation to have these bold acts of courage and clear statements that there is a level of integrity that needs to be in place. i hope will start to see those public affirmations of what it is judicial nominees should represent. >> to talk about the important role the public place. i appreciate that were talking

about this issue because i don't think there's been enough attention focused on the crisis underway when it comes to the nominees. people need to pay attention to who are the lawyers in their respective states being put forth for these nominations. that they bring question to bear on their senator if they think there's nominee unqualified. we should not sit back and say hope and prayer that a senator wakes up on the right side of the bed. the public place import part in raising our objections with our it's really critical right now. >> if each of you could spend

ten minutes alone with the trip white house counsel oversees judicial nominations and make one request of him in the sincere way about a change you can make in the way they're doing judicial nominations given it's a republican minus the put forward conservatives. but if you some chance what would your request be? >> mine would be easy. josé you kidding me, you can't find one african-american conservative, one condoleezza rice, one : powell. >> they found a think what we have seen with respect to race

and the utter lack of gender diversity is abhorrence. i want to have a heart-to-heart say you need to do better. >> i want to be behind christensen, what she said. i would encourage him to consult with -- one other erosion of the breaks that the senate can apply love the pre-nomination consultation. it sounds super wonky. lawyers understand how important it is that the home state senator could have a say. there's been one in effect for decades. i don't think the white house counsel has any concept of why it's a good idea why there

should be a merit selection process. that we that people with extreme records of bias. diversity based on that circuit. in the eighth circuit we have terrible diversity. many in this room and there's a lack of diversity. that could be solved if there is more consultation. >> building and christine's point -- i know you're busy but really we can help you out.

please don't take every name you get from mike pence, it's not worth it is not worth it to take on the burden of these voices in the wilderness friday as therapist in 1950 or 1870. you can look at race, gender and all these other things. i'd say make my job harder. you're putting up these wackos that are so out of sync of where we are as a nation done in a moment, why are we doing this to yourself why you doing it to the country? it's insensitive to suggest that there are not good, solid conservatives. we don't agree on a lot of things. there is financial core group of

values that individuals can be liberal or conservative. fundamental rights and the idea making sure there's access to court. the heritage foundation not be the best. however it is in that role, there really is a better pool of people to choose from known as expressing -- to the extent to which the selection it really is contributing to something we all need to be healthy on.

>> you can also keep writing them down so this question what do we do? >> you express your outrage and objection to your senator about some of these unqualified mainstream nominees that are being put forth from your stay. everybody should be paying attention to the vacancies in your state. there judicial vacancies and i think it's important to register your voice of opposition and objection so your senators properly review these people so

speaking up and participating in the process is an important ro role. >> if you are in d.c. you can shop to the judiciary committee. the peterson hearing went on to them. it is open to the public. the most important thing is to talk to other people and get activated on the senate. they are supposed to be the into independent check. the senate -- sometimes we do have enthusiasm in getting members to understand this is an important issue to you is half the battle. senators need to hear that the

independence of the court is important. so that matters to others as well. >> there's so many different ways in which an individual can exercise their voice. it could be demanding coverage of what is happening this is been a sleeper issue an extremely part of the last few months to have this in the toxicity that we will not recover from. the shape constitutional law our children and grandchildren are

looking at this moment to stand up and defend them. >> to see this process holding for district nominees i think it's the single most important thing that affects the quality of the nominees. it is a blue piece of paper and historically for that is sent to the to home state senators when it chairman is nominated.

there have been exceptions over the years they have a two pronged role. advice and consent. they need some role to give advice so sometimes it has been abuse. i think the eastern district of north carolina is an example of them using the blue slip to keep that seat open for more than a decade. having that say in the role has ensured have had some stay say in staffing. if that is eroded further to see

less check so it's an increase in the executive power why chairman grassley would want that to happen given he served in this institution for so long, i think it's a function of short-term thinking. and a senator should understand that it reduces their own power and will reduce it with their next president after that. i think long-term it will reduce. >> whenever we see an effort to change the rules of the game we should be wary and skeptical. the blue slip tradition has been a long-standing practice for senate for handling judicial nominees. it encourages bipartisanship to

work together. to check on radical unqualified nominees. i think it is dangerous that were announcing to walk away from the process of the blue's -- tradition. >> to think grassley is doing long-term damage to the committee. >> to think this is a serious? >> i think will recognize if it's a pattern or risk. it's a risk of the night taking the question seriously. if he doesn't get another

hearing for that and under oath nominee is not taken this seriously and why are they going through this while they fill out the questionnaire and you get away with it if you don't. there's pace concern and blues slip concerned that will diminish. >> it also says something about what the person's capacity would be in a courtroom. witnesses taken all the new expect them to be truthful. you expect judges injury and if you have one that has there's reason to have confidence that that person could carry out

their duties and responsibilities. >> to see or expect these extending to specialized courts where judges has been nominated for subject matter expertise? >> we've already seen him try to do a pipeline by nominating to who only cut because they are do not have to go through the ava qualification rating. i think to the extent that we've seen -- of these nominees have been put forth their not going

to be immune from the type of things we have seen. >> that's likely to be the place where we see this strategy really playing now and see a concerted focus radical nominees. about 99.5% of cases that move through the court system and the district court in circuit court. i continue to think they'll be the real place a focus. >> you've seen grassley a mcconnell place in their emphasis on the court of appeals we may continue to see nominations put forth. whether or not they are made for

part of their base of the they don't look to the system quickly think will see that trend. >> any questions? my wife just texted and asked how's it going? >> any chance of recusal i think there's several. let's just take well haven't talked about yet. bush was one of two people that they named -- bloggers. they blogged on so many

different issues that emotion would certainly be in order for some of them. but recusal motions i can imagine a lot of them who get confirmed. it would be interesting if blog posting become a way to recuse people. many of his nominees are bloggers. we had john parrish, i'm curious to see the motion based on -- or a judge. i think we haven't seen that much. >> i'm sure it has been [inaudible] a mass scale. this being an arrow were

overseen chilly bias we may very well see lawyers say in my job is to provide the most -- representation and make sure they're treated fairly. if they feel like they've been aside to the judge for the biases clear you might see more motions. it's interesting question. >> it's important when you look at the chilling nature of what has happened. being able to offer this assessment and put on the record that you have concerns about this individuals bias, a refusal

recusal motion there's a reason to believe this person cannot provide a fair hearing for your client. cervix and mistakes are so high there been many conversations i've had so many ways how the entire system depends on good faith. when you see individuals why of failing to disclose in that process what is it play about the good-faith presumption that is animated the system. it will be interesting. we may see some of those motio motions. anyone taking comfort that these nominees can be confirmed and

don't worry they should -- what if they are just rude? >> is that a federal crime were judicial candidates falsely were misleading answer their questionnaires? . .

>> in the for-profit law firms in these nonprofit organizations that are very valuable. >> diversity of perspective really is a key issue a lot of people were fighting for with

the last administration to make sure there were some public-interest lawyers and not just people who went to harvard and yale that are considered for the core. i echo your concern there is also a class issue that people have different perspectives. what we all say diversity matters with the ability to make sure they are not staffed against you. it is an important point versus private education but it only comes up in the supreme court context. >> this is a topic for another

day if there is a path to follow but most certainly during those obama years those who became judges the public defender would be one example. just to underscore right now at that moment in terms of progress with thurgood marshall a civil rights lawyer and then to elevate their career to protect the public interest. and that isn't something we

think we would ever see from this president. >> why? [laughter] so the mission so clearly on a mission. but on the legal ideological mission and with that i think we are done. >> thanks for being here. >> they have given us a lot to think about. and to look at those initiatives.

when walking them through this area. and then to speak how important it is. so thank you for being here. [applause]