"american history tv" is in prime time discussions on abraham lincoln's friends and enemies. and -- and howard university professor and the green medford, "american history tv" prime time starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern and prime time on c-span. president's trump address from switzerland, he's the first sitting u.s. president to speak since clinton. you can see that tonight 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> and now a discussion about how the trump administration chooses judicial nominees, the american constitution society hosted this hour and a half long event here in washington, d.c. >> the constitution society welcome and thank you for joining us this evening for the conversation, the judicial nominations process.

what's the future? or wtf. i'm director of strategic engagement at the american constitution society and i have the privilege to work on the relevant and dynamic topic of judicial nominations and amply fieg the courts near and deer to all -- a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, acs works for positive change by shaping debate on the important legal and constitutional issues and we have networks of lawyers, law students, judges and policymakers dedicated to those ideas. i encourage you to visit our website, acs law.org. attend ourevents and get involved in the local and chapters across the country. those here in d. krfrmt get in touch with our d.c. lawyer

chapters. we also ask those of you on social media to follow acs on twitter, please follow us at @acs law and@acsdc chapter. we engurj you to join the dc chapter in using the hashtag, #wts and #acstalks and you can see photos on instagram page. i want to take a moment to thank the dc lawyer chapter. instead fast to the attention in the courts and issues o of nominations cribbing to research effort and i'm grateful to the entire chapter in particular susan wilker for hosting this exciting conversation. and a special thank you to the

leadership conference for hosting us here tonight in their beautiful space m the importance of the courts and judges cannot be overstated. judges are on the front line of defending rule of law and decide cases every day on issues that we care about. from immigration, to who can enter our country, reproduct dif health care, consumer protection, clean water to lgbt q rights. there are nearly 900 judges that serve on the u.s. district if circuit courts of appeals and they decide the vast majority of cases. it's important to consider closely who is being nominated to the courts because quite often, these are the judges considered for future vacancies. justice said she was elevated last year with previously serving on the 10th circuit court after appeals. we have a president who --

individual judges and we have a senate majority leader and committee chair rushing their consideration of this president's nominees. right now there are more than 150 current known future vacancies on the federal court which represents nearly 20% of the federal judiciary. this is unfortunately, by design. after the senate majority took the step of holding open the supreme court seat that president obama nominated chief garwin for, in hopes they can confirm nominees they were confident in to fulfill the agenda and recently, proposals on congress to expand the number of -- so that this administration can fill more to reverse the judicial legacy of president obama. the white house and senate majority have been aggressive to stop the courts.

confirming 23 lifetime judicial appointments one to the supreme court and 12 to the circuit court of appeals. president obama first year, the senate confirmed 13 -- 3 to the circuit courts. this administration has been aggressive in naming nominees without consultation from senators, they have been embarrassed by some of the symptoms of their rushed process having to reconsider moving forward, for example with three incredibly troubling nominees sh, the concerning trends we have seen remain in some others. nominees for example, who lack legal experience. lack experience in the jurisdiction which they are nominated. come from strong ideological backgrounds, deeply troubling anonymous statements, they might not have received -- from the aba and not fully forthcoming in

the senate judiciary questionnaire or hearing. many senators have tried to be a check and -- provide advice and consent by withholding their blue slips that signal to the committee chair that the senators from the state or that nominee would serve are supportive of that nomination. the chair would proceed with that nomination if that one had the support of both of their home state senators. just last month the senate judiciary committee chair made the decision that he would be the sole ash trir. here to talk about this is amazing women. a true honor, they are relentless, fiercely smart and funny and experts on this topic.

jennifer, she is the white house correspondent in congressional reporter for the you have i think ton post. she is able to really funny seemingly really funny about devilling into a lot of the various aspects of this otherwise sometimes mundane process with incredible perspective. we're so thankful to jen and the panel for being here. thank you. >> wow. go on. no, really. come back. hi. welcome to judicial nominations wtf. make of that title what you will. i will introduce our panelists. seated next to me is kristen clarke, president and executive director of the lawyers' committee for civil rights under law. sitting next to her is kristine lucius. executive vp for policy at the leadership conference for civil rights. and on the end is sharon mcgowan, director of strategy at lambda legal.

so let's jump right in. between all of your backgrounds and your wealth of knowledge of the law and the years of experience covering the judicial branch, how would you sum up the last year in one word in terms of trump's judicial nominations? one word. >> earth-shattering. >> i guess that's one word. okay. >> is it hyphenated? >> it is hyphenated. >> i was going for the parade of horribles. >> just put in the hyphens. >> i gave you guys these questions in advance. one word. >> you can tell people who have tried to sort of get in the word limit, i'll put some hyphens in there. my one word, there are many other words, but the one word i would use is revealing. >> oh. that's deep. so have you -- each of you can weigh in on this, have you been surprised at all by the last

year and trump's style of nominating and rushing people to the process? and i guess by style i mean he's been very fast. he's been pretty sloppy. and his judicial picks have been heavily shaped by right-wing groups like the federalist society. is this what you expected, you know, a year or so ago? we'll start here. >> so, you know, as a civil rights lawyer, the courts matter. and i think that courts matter for all americans. the courts play an incredibly important role in american life. there tends to be a lot of focus on the united states supreme court, but the reality is that there are just a handful, a few dozen cases that get heard and resolved by the u.s. supreme court. there are tens of thousands of cases that move through the federal district and federal circuit courts that touch every aspect of our lives, and i think that historically, we have seen presidents really respect the integrity of the courts and put forth nominees who sometimes invite debate, put forth

nominees who sometimes, you know, are polarizing, but historically, we've seen presidents put forth 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's because he has been so singularly focused on putting forth radical ideologues who fall far outside the legal mainstream. he's put through people of low caliber, as we saw with matthew peterson, and he has been relentless of putting forward young white men for vacancies that exist across our federal courts. i think that's a shame. white men make up about 31% of the u.s. population but have represented the lion's share,

more than 80% of this president's nominations. i think that sends a really dangerous message to the african-americans, latinos, to women, to the lgbtq community. people who represent the highest levels of their legal profession and could ably occupy seats on these courts. so what we're seeing from president trump i think is markedly different than anything we've seen from a president in modern time. >> so is this what you expected headed into the trump administration? >> i knew things would be bad but i didn't think they'd be that extreme. that's what we've seen from this president. just nominees who are incredible outliers who hold abhorrent views on civil rights issues, abhorrent views about lgbtq people. people who have dedicated their lives to opposing civil rights.

i mean, these are the kind of people that he is focused on with laser precision on putting into these lifetime positions on our courts. >> jen, i would say that what -- it probably shouldn't surprise us that he's moved this quickly or that they're this 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 his -- that he was worthy of their -- of their support. and during that process, he bragged about and got applause lines on litmus tests about judges he would nominate if he became president. and he also outsourced the selection process to two right-wing interest groups and what i think we've seen already is they are not very good at

vetting or maybe they're good at vetting, it depends on whether you think this is a bug or a feature of his judicial nominations. but during the campaign, trump, then-candidate trump, made judicial nominations in that he wanted to remake the courts and that we would have a litmus test on reproductive freedom and on guns. he bragged about it. he got applause lines about it. and he clearly indicated he was going to do this outsourcing that he has done. i don't think, though, when we saw that, we expected that there would be people blogging in defense of the kkk or that they would be so extremely hostile to lgbtq individuals. you know, i think that kristen's right, the courts matter enormously. i think we are surprised at how bad, how biased, how hostile to civil rights they've been. i think we expected given the campaign promises that they would be extreme, but i'm not sure we expected the full dimensions of them. >> and i would just echo a lot of what kristine said, in many

ways my choice of the one word, which was a one-word answer, gold star, thank you -- >> get all the points. >> -- in terms of revealing, i think in many ways the trump administration has revealed much about itself through the nominees that it has chosen and in many ways senate republicans have revealed much about themselves in how they have conducted themselves. i think, you know, i completely agree that many many people sort of had the narrative whether you believe it or not, they were willing to hold their nose and vote for trump because of the courts and to see what mitch mcconnell was willing to do and the norms he was willing to disregard with respect to judicial nominees when president obama was in office. you know, we've always sort of talked about the fact that there has been in many ways an intensity gap between our view of the world and those on the other side and their understanding, they have been lying in wait for this moment, right?

this is the -- not surprised by the caliber of the nominees. in part because certainly the lgbt community knew what we were getting with mike pence, and frankly, you know, i somehow suspect that president trump is not reviewing the dossiers of these nominees carefully when deciding who to put forth, but there are individuals like mike pence who absolutely sort of knew that this was sort of part of what they would get by signing on to this agenda. and so to the extent that as kristine said, is this a function of no vetting or very careful vetting? they're going to keep throwing out nominees like this until we can beat one back which makes the jeff matier story so interesting, i'm sure we'll get to that, again, what is the exception, what is the new norm? i do think it really does demonstrate that there is an unwillingness to actually serve in that role of a check and of a balance on these excesses out of the executive branch that i think in some ways is sort of the most troubling sort of revelation over the last year.

and we've seen some unlikely defenders of the courts. i don't know if i would have put senator kennedy from louisiana on my short list of people, there to make some attempt to defend the dignity of the courts. would i wish his list were more, you know, capacious? of course. but i do think that this is a snowball that has picked up momentum has it's rolled down the hill. >> how does trump already change the federal bench when you're in, obviously he got a supreme court nominee confirmed, which is what a lot of people focus on the most, but here's gotten how many district and circuit court nominees confirmed? i know he got 12 circuit court nominees through in one year which is a report of -- in fact, i have the statistic here. that's more than any president has gotten confirmed in their first year since the courts were created in 1891. 12 circuit court nominees in one year. that's amazing. but what do you think that his -- that trump's biggest effect has been on the bench already? is it the supreme court?

or is it 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 ability to appoint someone to the supreme court so early on in this tenure was significant. we're now into term two with judge gorsuch, and we're already seeing that he is closely aligned with justice thomas on a number of cases. and i think he is proving to be a justice who matches the litmus test, the ideological litmus test that this president has been using for nominees across the board. a litmus test that was shaped and defined in large part by the heritage foundation and the federalist society. this is a president who's all about identifying so-called originalists and texturalists 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've seen emerge through the courts over the past decade. so the supreme court is just the tip of the iceberg. i think that he has moved forward at a lightning pace in confirming a record number of judges to the district and circuit courts in year one. former judge shira shinland of the southern district of new york has offered a lot of commentary about what president trump is doing with respect to judicial nominations and i think that she's exactly right when she's identified this as, perhaps, his lasting legacy. right? because these are young judges outside the mainstream who will be there for decades issuing rulings on issues that impact all aspects of american life, not just issues on voting rights and criminal justice and employment discrimination and fair housing, issues on corporate -- corporations and issues really that touched all aspects of our lives. so i think we're already seeing and feeling the impact and this

president really has been racing forward and moving nominees at a pace that exceeds that of any other president in recent time. >> thoughts? >> i agree with everything kristen said. i think also her earlier point about making the courts whiter and more male, you know, reversing that trend that we had been seeing on diversifying the judges who serve in communities that should reflect the communities they serve. i think that's going to. be a lasting legacy as well. but the other thing i would say is nominating gorsuch to a seat held hostage and then lowering the threshold for votes, so when they change the rule that instead of having a 60-vote threshold in the senate, to 50, even though that decision was made by the senators, it was made because president trump chose someone so divisive. there was not the consultation that usually occurred across the

aisle. there was not 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 gorsuch will be, i also think that is a longer legacy that that rule change happened. >> i think one of the other ways that we're seeing the change already felt is, for example, when judge gorsuch was at his confirmation hearing and gave his lip service to precedent and the rule of law and yet at the first opportunity that was made available to him, then justice gorsuch decided that the marriage equality decision didn't, in fact, answer the question of whether or not married same-sex couples were entitled to be on their child's birth certificate. knotwith standing the langua--

notwithstanding the language of obergerfeld, i think we see justice gorsuch doing, going to ripple down to nominees we are getting confirmed to the court of appeals is saying try it, see if you can get away with it. it really is an emboldening of individuals who, again, will go through the confirmation process and in ways i feel very sympathetic to the frustration that's been expressed perhaps more colorfully than i can on television by senator whitehouse, he usually keeps it clean because he's recorded as will. the notion we have individuals we know exactly why they were elected. as lambda identified, one in three have explicitly blatantly anti-lgbt credentials and clearly nominations not in spite of that but, in fact, because of that. any other sort of matrix, look at individuals and the nomination of farr in north carolina, the offensiveness and

outrage of that nomination, yet, instead, that is probably part of how he jumped to the head of the queue, right? so i do think there is really an attempt to sort of signal a new day and see the arguments become more outlandish and potentially decisions from lower courts becoming more outlandish because there's been this sort of signaling that things were considered settled might not be anymore. >> so let's talk about the diversity of trump's judicial nominees. i know as of late november, trump had nominated 54 white judges. three american indian judges. one latino judge. and one black judge. that's in a year. of his judges, only 19% of them are women. so as the panelists have noted, that leaves a whole bunch of straight white guys in line to become federal 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 cases that are decided all across the country by federal judges who are consistently straight white men? what does that really mean? >> well, on a real basic level, our courts, they are public courts that serve the american people and they should reflect the diversity of the country. of the communities they serve. so it's a travesty to see a slate of nominees advanced over the past year that in no way reflects america today. we have to remember that our courts right now, there's a lot of work that needs to be done to address the historical underrepresentation of women and minorities who serve as judges. during obama's eight-year

tenure, he put forth about 320 or so judges. 42% of them were women. 19% of them were african-american. and about 10% of them were latino. that's a lot of work and 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 our federal courts and it sends a dangerous message to the public. we want a public that can have confidence in the outcomes that are produced by courts. we want the public to feel that our courts are served by judges who are fair and impartial. and moreover, we want courts that are represented by judges who bring a diversity of perspective. so that they can truly handle and wrestle with the complex and varied issues that come before them. cases that concern immigrants' rights, lgbt issues, reproductive rights. really the business that goes before courts demands that we have judges that bring with them a diversity of perspectives so it's truly a travesty what we're seeing from this president.

>> so i would add that the senate judiciary committee did a hearing a couple years ago talking about the influence, even if there's just one -- how one woman on a three-judge panel how the males judges vote and rule on those panels. it was this really impressive statistical study about the influence of just adding that one element of diversity on a panel and so as an example, how we can move the needle in terms of the outcomes you get and how they -- >> how did it affect them? >> it dramatically affected not just -- it wasn't just a study about how the female judges ruled, but it was a study to show their influence on panels. and so i'm sure acs can dig up that stat and put it up on their website, but it was in a senate judiciary committee hearing about five years ago and it was one of those moments where i think when we talk about

diversity, we often talk about public confidence in the courts which is so important, especially at a time where people really have, you know, grown to understand systemic bias and have distrust in institutions and government. but also i think it's interesting to not just think about it for diversity sake or confidence sake, but also how it impacts the other existing establishment players, you know, within the courts. so that was just a study that i had never thought about how it would influence the other people on the panels. and it was something that i thought the lawyers here in this lawyer's chapter might care about, too. >> i think the only thing that i would add, as i agree with all of that, is it's important in and of itself to make sure that we are having this conversation about who it is, who will be there making these fundamentally important decisions that in some cases are about separating families, either through the criminal justice system or the immigration system, thinking about the power of these positions and what does it mean to reconsolidate that power back

in the hands of a narrow select group of straight white men? but i also think it's important for us to have that extra layer of conversation of who -- what kind of straight white men are we seeing? we're seeing far, right? we're seeing individuals that are comfortable sort of defending the first iterations of the klan as nice business advisory councils. the kind of people we're seeing is the extra on top of the troubling nature of the lack of diversity, the fact we have on top of that seeing individuals drawn from such extreme viewpoints and organizations further undermines confidence, in the same way you could potentially in theory have a non racist all-white police force but the chances of people actually feeling as though that is a police force that is working with the community and not targeting the community is obviously going to be undermined if the police force does not look like the community that they're serving. there's no reason why that

calculous is any different, and, in fact, i think the stakes are even higher when you think about the unilateral authority that many of these federal judges exercise every day. >> and -- >> i'm sorry. one more point on diversity is the senate judiciary committee, i mean, many of us remember back in '91 when clarence thomas was having his hearings and it was all white men on the senate judiciary committee. it was really interesting this week to see how that changed. on wednesday, you had an appellate judge being questioned about several sexual harassment cases, and you had female senators questioning this judge about why wasn't this outrageous behavior, why wasn't this illegal, why did you not find this clearly troubling conduct to be sexual harassment? and it was such an interesting dramatic moment because you had female senator after female senator asking this type of question of a male judge who had been serving for a long time. he's up for elevation. but it just -- the dynamic there compared to '91 when they were questioning anita hill was

stark. i mean, if someone did a side-by-side of those two, you'd see at least in the senate we've come a long way. but what it also reminds you of is you're still talking about, you know, a white male judge and he had his prism through which he was viewing these sexual harassment cases. >> and then to kristine's point, the other game-changing development this week was the appointments of senators cory booker and kamala harris to the senate judiciary committee which is such an important committee, it's the committee tasked with initially vetting and vetting properly all these judicial nominees being put forward. i think it's important that we have diversity at every level of our government and really pleased that we've now gone from one african-american having ever served on this committee in its more than 200-year history to 3 this week with the appointments of booker and harris, we'll be looking to them to play a

critical role in lifting up issues of race and civil rights as we move forward. let me come back and just add a personal point to the debate, discussion we're having right now. as an african-american woman, as a mother of a 13-year-old black boy, you know, there is something troubling with what we're seeing with this administration when it comes to racial diversity and their, you know, inclination to without hesitation put forth white men for judgeships, for u.s. attorney positions, for critical positions across the administration. it sends a really dangerous message, i think, to children of color. to minority communities, generally, about their life aspirations. >> what is the message? >> that they are not qualified. that they can't even make the cut. that they can never be worthy of

serving in important roles like, you know, justice on a court or becoming a u.s. attorney. and we need -- americans deserve a government, i think, that sends a different message, that sends a message of inclusion, that sends a message that anyone can have access to opportunity in our country. in so many ways, this administration is turning the clock back. >> jen, if i can just say, we had another really explicit of example of it this week, where we had the nomination of an individual for a federal district court judgeship, howard nielsen, who made the argument that a gay judge should have had to reveal and basically recuse himself from hearing a civil rights case involving the lgbtq community, and i think that it's important to sort of put that in context now for a trump president who feels as though he can disparage a mexican-american judge and say he's unworthy. i mean, maybe we shouldn't be

surprised, but i would like to think that we are still in a place where we are shocked by the notion that someone would actually sort of put forth an argument suggesting an aspect of their identity makes them biased, which inherently means that only white men can be fair and everyone else is unfair or unbiased or unworthy of these positions. so it's not only sort of the signaling of what it means in terms of professional aspirations but also we're seeing the flip side of that as well where the idea that other people bringing their perspective, that is biased that we need to protect ourselves from, as opposed to being a really important perspective that must be part of our judicial system in order for it to have any credibility. >> do you know of any, like, early 40-something, graying, lesbian judicial nominees? you do not look amused. okay. let's talk about some of trump's specific judicial nominees. there's been a lot of talk about how some of them are particularly colorful or worrisome or dangerous. i'm curious, who do each of you

think is trump's most -- one of trump's most dangerous or bizarre judicial nominees? i'm going to go first because i -- >> dangerous and bizarre? >> -- have my choice already. brett talley is -- was a district court nominee. 36 years old. never tried a case. he did not tell the senate his wife was married to the white house chief of staff who oversees the president's judicial nominations and also writes horror novels on the side and used to be a paranormal activity investigator. this was a nominee for a district court seat. he eventually, he withdrew his name in embarrassment because of all the reasons -- >> he still serves at the justice department. >> he does. >> vetting other -- >> other judicial nominees. but at least there was some kind of check here where even someone who met all these credentials, or had all those qualities, i mean, this guy made it to a hearing, didn't he? did he ever have this hearing? he did.

so this is -- this is the caliber of someone who made it all the way to a senate judiciary committee confirmation hearing and had to bow out in embarrassment for many of the reasons i said. so is there someone who stands out to you guys where you've just been of the mix, where you're like, this person is particularly insane or dangerous for the greater good? >> well, let's be honest, we know that there are more matthew petersons out there. >> can you just tell people who matthew peeterson is? >> matthew peterson is the one whose nomination went up in flames when senator whitehouse from louisiana -- >> kennedy. >> sorry, senator kennedy, made clear that this was somebody who didn't know about the federal rules of evidence. he hadn't tried cases. he hadn't really conducted depositions. he hadn't had the kind of basic legal experience that you tend to see from otherwise qualified nominees who are put forth.

it almost seemed accidental that he was exposed. it really speaks that has really just been railroading nominees through at a lightning fast pace and not taking the time to properly examine these nominees' records. so there are more petersons out there. i think it's really important that the senate slow down, that they stop attempting to push forth several circuit court nominees in one day which is not something we've ever historically seen. and really take time to comb through and figure out who these people are. figure out whether they've been honest and fully transparent in the questionnaires they've put forward. we've seen nominee after nominee who's failed to make disclosures. so i hope that the senate can smoke out and identify the other petersons that have been put

forth by trump, but the one nominee who i would underscore as particularly dangerous and he was renominated by trump last week is thomas farr. thomas farr is somebody who has been nominated for a vacant seat in north carolina for the eastern district of north carolina. this is a district that is roughly 30% african-american and never had an african-american judge confirmed to sit in this court in its more than 140-plus-year history. during obama's tenure, there were two african-american women who were put forward. a former prosecutor, and a former state supreme court judge. jennifer may parker and patricia timmons goodson. they have now been replaced by the likes of thomas farr. thomas farr is somebody who has really dedicated his career to defending and promoting voter suppression in the state of north carolina.

he was the judge who defended the state's monster voter suppression law that the court of appeals found to dis criminate against minority voters with almost surgical precision. he's defended the state in racial gerrymandering cases on the wrong side. he's somebody who's defended an employer who said that women with children didn't have a place in the workplace. we at the lawyers' committee litigated a case against thomas farr, pugh vs. avis, this was a case involving a car dealership that discriminated against african-americans. at every stage of thomas farr's career, he has been someone who's been deeply opposed to civil rights, but when it comes to voting rights in particular, the level of hostility and recalcitrance have been pronounced. >> do you want to mention his

relationship with jesse helms? >> indeed, right. he was a lawyer for jesse helms. and represented helms at a moment where the campaign was accused of having engaged in voter intimidation against african-americans and there were some question about whether he was truthful about his ties to campaign when he first came before the senate judiciary committee. so for so many reasons, i think it's important that the senate slow down, carefully review this nominee. he is somebody who is opposed by many people in the civil rights community who care about the right to vote. he's somebody who i do not believe would be fair and impartial if he is appointed ultimately to the bench. i think he's somebody who would work decidedly to overturn cases in the voting rights space. so, so thomas farr, someone who is synonymous with voter

suppression, i would put forth as the most dangerous nominee out there today. >> i second kristen. i love when kristen and i agree. >> you have to pick a different one. i picked brett talley, paranormal investigator. >> you picked -- i totally agree with kristen. this is a perfect example of chosen because it was a feature, not a bug. this is how this nominee earned the nomination. for anyone who cares about democracy, anyone who cares about voter suppression, this is the number one. there really isn't -- there's a lot of bias, there's a lot of problematic things about many other nominees, but he stands alone, i think, in this really troubling voter suppression history, plus recency. not only the postcards and potentially misleading the committee when questioned about

his involvement in the jesse he he heltms' postcards. >> for anyone watching or does not know, he spent out 100,000 postcards specifically to black communitieses saying that the election was a different day and false information of when the election was and warned that they could be punished for voter fraud if you don't vote on the right day. this happened. 100,000 postcards. >> and it is a notorious case, and he was asked directly under oath if he was involved in it. unfoch n unfortunately, it was not questioned as extensively as peterson was, right? so there are several members who are new members. they have not had a chance to question this nominee. this is an example of a nominee who may have misled the committee, and had something

troubling in the background that since the hearing people have come out and said that he was involved. i remember. and we now have two new members who, you know, they should have a right to question thomas pharr in a new hearing. so it is hard and i agree with kristin to name anyone, because i can name others. >> are i can. >> ooh, i think that i know who you are saying. should we say it together? >> no he is a trifecta. >> and he is the pooh-pooh platter. >> the what? >> the poo-poo platter. >> isn't that right? it is a smorgasbord of civil rights offenses, and horrific record with voting rights and stood shoulder to shoulder with the folks in north carolina trying to disenfranchise african-americans and also made it his personal mission in life to target the lbgt families and

target our children and pushing the campaigns against students like gavin grimm trying to live out their life and go to the bathroom in peace, and the mastermind behind the hobby lobby and the idea that religious people have a license to discriminate if you are not consistent with their world view, and of course, the hobby lobby decision was particularly troublesome, because in that case, it was a for-profit employer whose religious, and can you say who with nonprofit -- this for-profit, this craftt store was going to override the employer who would use her employer-approved insurance to acquire contraceptives contraceptives. and so it is when you have not only the all of the ways in which this individual sort of stands opposed to fundamental

civil rightrights, but also, he the brain behind a lot of the theories percolating over the last 20 years, and it is easy, because even in the confirmation hearing he is believing this stuff so truly in the core, he could not eke out the nonanswers that most of them know to say, right? there were times when he had to literally say that i would not abide by precedent, and this is in fact, what he and again, many of the individuals as well, like your jeff mattiers and jeff kaczmareks, and so when you have is a snowflake and five more come out, but it is because it is a court of appeals nominee, it has the ability to affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of lives of lgbt people who are in the state who need the most defense from the things that we are seeing happening in mississippi where the state is basically sanctioning and giving the blessing of the lgbtq, and

of those on the court of appeals who is opposed to lgbt dignity and the law, and the ant anti-campaign, and so as orfying in part because of the symbolism and he so the public face of vote suppression, but cal duncan is in some ways the face of the other force s ths that we have fighting and really emboldened to come to the trump era. >> let's talk about the american bar association, and they have had a central role in the judicial no, ma'minees since 19 they have evaluated something like more than 1700 traditional nominee, and republican and democratict president, and it is rare when they decide that somebody is unanimously not qualified to be a judge, and i am talking like a panel of like 15 people who thoroughly

evaluate this nominee, and they talk to the people that this nominee know, and they go through all of the nominee, and the exhaustive work, and one year in, they have a total of four judicial nominees not rated qualified and two of them unanimously rated not qualified. one of them who got the unanimously not qualifyied stevn graus who was confirmed unanimous ly unanimously by the senate. >> jen, he was not just rated not qualified like you would expect brett tally, but somebody who had never tried a case in court, but he was disqualified for bias. that is something -- >> well, he was, yes, for bias, but i have here just to be clee, he was also rated for being gratuitously rude. >> so temperament. >> so, i will just say that i havet not seen that in the 15 years working on the judicial

nominations, and usually the aba's rating is a minimal set of qualification, and it does not look at the ideology and the adherence to precedent and this is going to be a rare and unusual rating, and they go and interview people locally who know the reputation of the no, ma'am knee, and normally people frankly are hesitant to say such things, because the odds that you are going to get confirmed anyway are high. and people are going to try to say whether to say that this guy had a bad temperament might think twice if he was going to appear before them. and in the case, the aba interviewed more than 100 people, and the theme of the aba report reported is that some of them had unusual fear of repercussions. >> and evyes. >> and even though they were unanimous in the final report, they were horrified that steven graus with connections to the home state, it would get back to

them that it was the person not saying great thing, and yet, he was confirmed and -- what does that tell you about the system? >> so, what i observed in the explanation by the chairman of trying to distinguish how this was in his view not a big deal is that they have attacked the aba as an institution. now they cling to it when to a aba ranks gorsuch well qualified, and so they are happy to use it as a credential when it is supporting them, but this is the first time also that they didn't let the aba tests fi at graus' hearing, and so the person who does the evaluation is usually testifying at the same hearing so that senators can say, well, how many people did you interview, and what type of information did they give? and so senator grassly as the chairman did not let the aba testify contemporaneously, and so they disparaged the aba to

discount the rating, but this is a stunning moment. because it was not just that they hadn't had trial experience for 1 ye2 years or 12 years out law school, but it was a specifically troubling things because if you care that the judges should be impartial, and the lawyers in the room understand how fundamental that is, and what the republicans on the judiciary senate hearing said that on graus, well, that is not something they will take into consideration. that was incredibly troubling and i'm afraid of what precedent that sets. i don't believe that if you have a well qualified that is enough to be insufficient, but the fact that they found not qualified for biased, should have given all 100 senators a pause to give a lifetime appointment to the circuit appointee. >> and as the representative from lam ba legal, that one of the biases and the key bias that

was identified is the ability to give fair and impartial justice to lgbt americans, and that message was not lost on us, and did not give a single republican on the committee pause. i think that it shows how much work still needs to be done, because the only way to change this dynamic is to have the same level of outrage around an individual who is identified as incapable of being fair to a transgender litigant as it is when somebody has the stupidity to say on video that they think that transgendered children are part of satan's plan. and satan's plan can't be the only thing bad enough to get you disqualify and so, we see, you know, this willingness again as christine said to pivot and move to an attack on the aba, but really what that is, it is a signaling that, you know, apparently, biased gaiagainst t lbtg litigants does not

apparently bother anyone that much and that is why lambda legal has doubled down. because many community, and many communities do rely on the court, and the gbt walk towards greater equality has been very much informed with by the opportunity to make our case in court and to have individuals like graus put on the bench, and again, not with a oh, well, chucks, we didn't know, but specifically having the information laid out on the table and to be confirmed anyway is a stark bone-chilling, revealing development. >> nice. >> nice, right? a meme. >> and so i think that it is important to understand that the american bar association is an organization that has been around forever, and virtually every law yes, and vast numbers of lawyers belong, and our memb members of the aba and it is not part san, but a fully nonpart san organization, and the ratings that they have been producing on judges have been

rating that judges have relied on for decades, since eisenhower, and george w. bush is one judge who is an exception to that, and again, we will have the administration that is changing the u rules of the game and changing standards, and changing tradition to put forth and race forward with the dangerous nominees. it is shameful that this administration announced that it would no longer into consideration the ratings that had historically and ra tradition aally provided the aba and i want to lift up the numbers between 1989 and 2006, the aba review rated more than 1800 nominees, and only two had been found not qualify and already, as you have noted, under this administration, we have seen four nominees who have been deemed not qualified. they also include, that list includes charles goodwin who was found not qualified for his work

habits, and he was nominated for a seat in oklahoma. >> and by work habits. >> what that report said that the guy did not show up to work, really. >> until midafternoon. >> until 3:00 p.m. everyday. >> and then holly teeter nominated for a seat in kansas who was deemed not qualified because of her complete lack of trial court experience. so, again, this is coming back to the caliber of the nominee. it is almost accidental that matthew peterson got smoked out and exposed. it is so important that we pay attention to this. >> and the court has ruled on the travel ban several times and the ban on transgendered troop, and daca and when the courts rule against him, he will have lash out at the court and the judicial system itself. this is him on the daca ruling

this week. he said, "it just shows everyone how unfair and broken our court system is when a person on the opposing side like daca almost always wins before being reversed by a higher court." this is the president of the united states criticizing the federal court system. have you heard of a past president doing something like this? >> no. >> what effect does that have on just regular people's understanding of how courts work and this whole third branch of government? do you think that people hear this and people think that we can't trust the court system? >> i think that is the hope. i ti that the president is trying to tear down any institution that will hold him accountable so whether it is the press or the courts or whether it is a special counsel. there is a truth trying to

decrease trust in anything that is going to hold him accountable and the courts are a big part of th that. and he has had loss after loss and the muslim ban and any time he criticizes, even the judge from hawaii, and the opinions of -- so, i, but we saw it again, and we saw that during the campaign when he attacked judge cure owe for the ancestry, and, right, for being latino, and claiming as if he couldn't be impartial, and between trump and trump university, and this had been a formula and risked his life in defense of the county and law enforcement, it was stunning. and what i didn't hear was much back cry from the judge, and like i definitely thought that

you would have the chief justice say something or hear someone talk about how damaging that can be be to our whole justice system, but instead, he has done it over and over again. that is not a nice way to end this, but he is going to be talking tab racial come talk talking about the racial composition, and it is going to be damage ing ing to the consti definitely. >> i refer to the the constitution in the crisis that we are in. we have an executive bran thatch is not respecting for the independence of the judiciary and this is a separate branch of government to provide a system of checks and balances, and whether it is putting forth unqualified nominees to stack the courts or not having respect

for the careful and pronounced judgments made by sitting judges. you know, it is deeply troubling, and demonstrates a lack of respect for the judiciary at the end of the day. >> and so if ki jump in, it was a justice department lawyer until recently, and justice changed, and i did civil rights work from elsewhere, and i this they one of the things that i worry about is that i used to speak about public service in the federal government as a wonderful fulfilling thing, and i worry so deeply about the men and women who are trying to hold on and to continue to perform p public service in the face of these kinds of attacks and again, thinking about the young people who will have no longer think or hopefully we will correct it, but at this moment, they would never think that they could be someone who is a judge, and you think about who wants to

be a part of a government that speaks this way about the court, and the fact that there is no meaningful pushback and no isolating of the president at moments when he makes these kinds of statements, again, it is that sort of the deeply disappointing and depressing moment, and you realize that is the kind of thing that we will have to spend a lot of time and energy as a nation healing that very, very deep wound. these are not institutions that seem to matter that much to the president. he is happy to impugn the courts and undermine the integrity of the presidency, but they are institutions that we in the room care very, very deeply about it. and it is important for us to stay engaged in this moment and continue to speak out and call out the shocking and offensive and un-american nature of the common set that we are hearing, and then also sort of understand the magnitude of the work that we will have to do to are repair the damage. >> i have to say as someone who

covers the judicial nominations, i would have to say that i have been more surprised by the way na the senate republicans have been just quiet and gone along with whatever, i mean, on any topic, and we could talk about that. but if we rare talking about th judges, they seem to quietly move along, and let through certain nominees who may be objectively worrisome or not qualified, but they will quietly usher them through for the most part. what do you make of that? it is like the whole -- it is like there is a machine in place just to get the nominees through without any -- and there is no criticism or very little criticism for some pretty transparently troubling no, ma'am knees from a nonpart san standpoint. i mean, have you, do you feel more surprised by that? because i do, and i don't really understand that here we are a year end, and you will see mitch

mcconnell on tv saying one thing, but they just, there is no critical thought or analysis of why a certain nominee can be troubling from a nonpart san standpoint at all. very little. >> i will say that we are living in the era of hyperpart sanship rig -- high per partisanship. and this is a congress that is deeply divided and incredibly difficult to find the moments where congress can move forward and find support from both sides of the aisle on critical, pressing, burning issues right now, like immigration reform. and what we do with the hundreds of thousands of daca recipients who are in this limbo, this state of limbo. so, you know, it is not just the judges, but in so many a ar are

right now, there is a political stalemate that is unfortunate and dangerous, and'm not quite sure how you change that, but it is the mid-term election season that may shake it up, but we need congress to figure out how to work together in a bipartisan way. we need a senate that will step up to do its job and carry out the constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on the judges, and there have just been glimmers of hope as we have seen with matthew peterson, the senator from colorado has said that he won't move forward on any nominations, because of jeff sessions' stance on marijuana which is apparently a reversal of a commitment that this administration made to him to respect his stance on marijuana use, and so, i am deeply pessimistic. >> so i want to go back to

tally, and figure tout lessons learned from the nominations. >> and brett tally was not only going to get a hear, but he got reported out of committee, and he got a straight party linet vote, and every democrat did not, and every democrat voted against him. and so he was pending on the floor for months before the withdrawal happened, and when the news first broke, the news broke as chairman grassley was urging the withdrawal, but what we found was subsequent is that senator shelby of alabama had withdrawn his support. so really, all it takes in my view, the lesson from that is that it takes one or two republican senators who can do it privately or publicly, and they hold the keys right now to whether a nominee is going to be vetted, whether there is an independent vetting. what senator kennedy showed the world, and it went viral around the world with the questioning

of peter zonks and that is what independence looks like, and that is what a real lawyer should do in a hearing when he is suspecting that somebody is woefully unqualified. what i would love to see in my heart of hearts is that playing out as bias as a disqualification and not knowing what a motion in limine is. i hope that we have a history and record of bias, as part of the conversations, but i think that senator kennedy got so much at tension from the viral video, that there is some glimmer of hope that it could cause others to act more independently. so don't forget that the ratio in the senate got tighter after the alabama election, and now with the two vote, it is only going to take two republicans to sink a nominee, and there are some independent-minded republican senators and so there is the more attention paid to these controver troe vetroversi

what sunk talley. i think it is press report after press report, and whether it is the paranormal stuff or the wife's employment -- >> and the wife being marry nod the white house counsel to who runs the president's judicial nominees. >> and under oath, it directly said identify all family members that could pose a conflict of interest, and the question could not have been more clear. the text was clear that he did not identify the wife who posed a conflict of interest, you know, that it is not that it would have been disqualifying, but you had to disclose it. he also did not disclose all of the anonymous blogging, including the defense of the kkk, a kkk, and he is a man who is vetting the judicial nominees and advising them how to fill out the senate questionnaire, and he also did not disclose all of the anonymous posts that investigative reporters were able to figure out were his. so the reporters stepped up, too, and that is all of the

knowledge and controversy that is knowledge, too. >> and so, is my glass half empty or half full, and i have the reports of the great reporters talking about mark norris, and the anti-lgbt anti-xenophobic nominee ist not quitting the day job yet, because he is not sure that the nominee is going forward and i feel good, and then i realize that this is up until the passage of the tax bill, the only thing that senate republicans were able to get done, and so, to the extent that they were holding all of the levers of power and may very well hear the clock ticking in the background, and hand those levers over soon, i do worry that we will face another true blitzkrieg of the nomination fwlaushgsz is a recognition at the time that may very well be running out. so i am hopeful that we will see, you know, a different dynamic, and i think that the strong questioning, and u one

tof the things that is amazing about senator harris on that committee is that she can break down a witness. so to the extent that that we have the extent of the theater of it, senator grassley has structured it in a way to prevent it from happening as much as possible. and so, having three sessions in a day, and having all of the things in a day, and to the extent that we have strong voices, and smart committed people in the senate and advocates out in the field, and making sure that the messages are amplified, and making sure that we will hopefully see the work being pulled back and for example two of the nominees that we have identified and terrible ant anti-lgbt issue, and as we know that in health care, this is a zombie apocalypse situation, and

so that we are not sitting on our laurels, and we are not seeing the nominees nominated or pushed back in a meaningful way. and there is a sign that this recognition is going to be not losing this. and with doug jones losing the ratio is 51-49 and extremely thin margin there. and which republicans are you looking at now, and if not just one in particular, and so the key republican who may be be on the judicial nomination, and may be reasonable or more -- senator kennedy is the only republican who has voted against a nominee, and not even susan collins yet. and so he has voted against cassias of the d.c. circuit, but he is someone who had been with the president through transition, and worked on every single legal controversy of the president, and he was confirmed

over to the opposition of senator kennedy. so that is the first, but i also note that senator mccain voted against an executive nominee of trump, because of the views on torture, bradbury, and executi nominee of trump's because of his views on torture, and bradbury and nielsen, the chairman mentioned earlier was part -- worked with bradbury in the bush administration and that's what we'll be watching to see if senator mccain feels the same way for this judicial nominee who was involved in the bush administration torture memos as he did for stephen bradbury who was nominated to the department of transportation. so those are two that have already shown signs. susan collins in the bush administration voted against bill pryor, and so that was an -- and he was a very controversial bush administration judge who was also on the trump short list for the supreme court. so that's another person who was

willing back in the last republican administration to say this person should not be confirmed. >> and one of the things i will also say is that it will be interesting in this next year to see a willingness to distance oneself from the president because in many ways there are different ways in which republicans can exert their influence and obviously some of the most public and in your face rebuke of the president is when someone is actually forced to a vote, right? but i also think that there are other ways in which we will see republicans hopefully exercising leadership to the extent that they're not ready to engage in bold, courageous steps and i encourage you to find that reserve of courage, but if it means having those conversations with grassley and having those conversations with the lead tore say, please, don't possibly ever make me vote on someone this nuts and that is how some of these nominees wind up sort of

falling away. than is important, as well, but i do think while every nominee that we are able to defeat on the basis of their lack of qualifications and their lack of ability to provide fair and impartial justice is important, it is going to be extremely important, again, as we talk about for the health of this nation to actually have some of those bold acts of courage and those very clear statements that there is a level of integrity that needs to be present in the nominees for these lifetime appointments and i do think we will start to see those more public affirmations of what it is that judicial nominees should represent rather than just the behind the scenes maneuvering that may have been part of how these other nominations have been withdrawn. >> yeah, and i guess, you know, i want to make sure we talk about the important role the public plays in this process.

i,a appreciate that we are talking about the issue and it's been a sleeper issue in year one of this administration. i don't think there's been as much attention on the focus and the crisis under way when it comes to these nominees, and i think it's important that people really pay attention to who are the lawyers in their respective states who are being put forth for these nominations, that they bring pressure to bear on their senator and speak up if they think that there is a nominee who is unqualified. i don't think that we should sit back, as if this is a game of chess and hope and pray that there's a senator that wakes up on the right side of the bed. the public plays an important part in raising our objections on record with the opposition to these radical outside the mainstream nominees is really critical right now. >> last question, and then we'll go to q and a.

>> don mcgahn and white house counsel that overseas judicial nomination and if they can make one request in a sincere open-minded way in a conversation about a change, a real change they can make in the way of making judicial nominations and given this is a republican white house, and they're going to put forward conservatives, but if you had some chance at shaping what's going on, what would your one request be to don mcgahn? >> i think mine would be very easy. i think i would say come on, are you kidding me? you can't find one african-american conservative? you can't find one condoleezza rice, one colin powell? you can't find one? >> they found one. >> they did find one magistrate out of alabama, so i guess two. come on, give me two. give me three. i think that what we've seen with respect to waste and the

utter lack of racial and virtual lack of racial diversity is abhorrent and i think i'd want to have a heart to heart with him and say, come o you'n, you't to do better. >> i think i'm behind kristen and say what she said. i would encourage him to actually consult with home state senators because one thing we haven't talked about is that one other erosion of the kind of breaks that the senate can apply is the consultation with home state senators. it sounds super wonky, but lawyers in this room, i'm sure, understand how important it is that the home state senator be able to have a say. they merit selection commissions in many states in wisconsin and there's been one, in effect, for decades and i don't think this white house counsel has any concept of why that's a good idea, why the home state senator

should have any say at all and why there should be a merit selection process that weeds out the cronies and that weeds out corruption and weeds out people that have extreme records of bias and you can also make sure that those local commissions put a premium on diversity and diversity based on that district or that circuit. for example, in the a circuit, we have terrible diversity, for example, in that circuit and i know many in this room have been trying to work on that because there is such a lack of diversity in that circuit, but there's a lack of diversity in other circuit, too. that would be solved if there was more consultation with the local and home state senators where the seat is where the judge is nominated. >> building on christine's point and it's fun to fantasize, and i would say don, i know you're busy, but really, we could help you out here.

please don't take every name that you get from mike pence and the it's not worth it, right? it's not worth it to you to take on the burden of these sort of voices in the wilderness who are fighting in the lgbt case as if it was 1950 or 1870, and you could fill in on race and gender and on all of these other things. i would almost say make my job harder. you're putting up these wackos that are so out of sync of where we are as a nation and really done in the moment where we are presumably friendly enough to where we're having a conversation. why are you doing this to wrourz and why are you doing this to the country? christine is absolutely right. it is offensive to suggest that there aren't good, solid conservative men and women in any of these state. i clerked for a republican judge. we don't agree on a lot of things, but there is an actual core group of values that

individuals can be liberal or conservative and still hold in terms of the rule of law. fundamental right, the idea of actually making sure that there is access to courts. so i would just say, you know, don, if you need help. if you're busy, the heritage foundation maybe isn't the best outsourcing opportunity. there are other people who are willing to make your life a little bit easier. he may be looking for a new job soon, so it may not be his problem anymore, but whoever it is who is in that role, there really is a better pool of people to choose from that are still consistent with your values and again, i think we all recognize elections have consequences, and so no one is expecting this administration to nominate the next thurgood marshall however much is made long for him, but really, the extent to which the selections are so spiteful and vindictive and in your face really is contributing to a denigration of an institution that we all really need to be a healthy one.

>> all right. let's do q and a. does anyone have a question? >> you can also keep writing them down, i'm told. >> okay. first question, so what do we do? >> you call 202-224-3121 and express your outrage and objection to your senator about some of these unqualified, bottom of the barrel, radical outside the mainstream nominees who are being put forth from your state. everybody should be paying attention to the vacancies that existed in your state. there are judicial emergencies and some of these vacancies do have to be filled, but i think it's really important to register your voice of opposition and your objection. tell the senator slow down properly and review these

people. they'll be there for life and the only way to review them is through impeachment which really happens. so speaking up and participating in the process, i think, is an important role for the public to play. >> i totally agree with that. if you're in d.c. you can show up in the judiciary committee. these are public meetings. >> it's a barrel of laughs. >> the peterson hearing was really one to be in, right? so it's open to the public, but the most important thing is talk to the people and get activated on the senate. focus on the senate and they're supposed to be the independent check and everyone has two senators and if you live in d.c. then your tank is to go to the mark-ups and the hearings because the senate is supposed to act as an number check, but sometimes we do have an enthusiasm gap getting members to understand that this is an important issue to you is half the battle. senators do need to hear that

the independence of the courts is important and they usually only hear from lawyers so also talk to your non-lawyer friends because it matters to them, too. it's impacting their lives every day, just as much as it is lawyers' lives. >> i agree with all of that, and again, so many different ways in which individuals can exercise your voice and it could be calling your senator and it could be writing letters to the editor and engaging the local press ask demanding coverage of what is happening because again, to the extent that kristen talked about the fact that this has been a sleeper issue it's been extremely important over the last few months to actually have this and become part of the public conversation of exactly what trump is doing to this country and the toxicity that he is injecting into our bloodstream in a way that we will not recover from in four or eight years when the trump administration is over. these are individuals who will be on the bench shaping constitutional law, thinking about our rights and our access to justice for 30 and 40 years. our children and grandchildren are looking to us at this moment

to stand up and defend them and so there is no tool that should be sort of left unused at this moment. >> do you see the blue slip process holding for district court nominees, if not circuit court nominees? for states with democratic senators how do you see the blue slip process as influencing the types of individuals who are nominated and confirmed? >> i think the blue slip is the single most important thing that affects the quality of nominees and the blue slip, i expect a lot of people here know what it is. >> c-span viewers, there is a blue piece of paper and historically, for a century that blue piece of paper is sent to the two home state senators. when sharon was nominated they sent it to her two home state senators and those two senators decide and sign off, either i approve or i disapprove and whether they approve or not determines whether sharon would move forward. that has been the process for about a century. now there have been exceptions

over the years, different chairmen have had slightly different interpretations, but the purpose of the blue slip and what it's meant to embody is that the senate has a two-pronged role, advice and consent and it's supposed to protect the home state senators to give advice and have it heard. i'm not here to say the blue slip solves all problems and it is an example of republicans using the blue slip to keep that open for more than a decade, but having that say, having that role has ensured that there is -- both branches of government and both the legislative and the executive branch have had some say in staffing and the third branch, the impartial branch. so if that is eroded further, you will see less check on the executive. it's just an increase in the

executive power diminution of senate power. now why, chairman grassley would want that to happen given that he has served in this institution for so long, i think it's just a function of short-term thinking. i think any senator on either side of the aisle should understand that eroding the blue slip power reduces their own power and it will reduce their power with the next president and with the president after that and the power is short-term thinking and just racing to get what they can, but i think that long term it's really going to reduce the check on the executive. >> and whenever we see an 11th-hour effort to change the rules of the game we should all be wary and deeply skeptical of what's afoot. and the blue slip tradition as christine notes has been a longstanding guiding tradition and practice in the senate for handling judicial nominees. it encourages bipartisanship and

encourages senators to work together. it's a check on radical and qualified nominees in many instances in the past. i think it's dangerous that we are now seeing a senate that's willing to so quickly walk away from the aba rating process. they walk away from the blue slip tradition and it's something, i think, that should make all of us really scared about what's going on, what's truly afoot. >> do you think grassley is doing long-term damage to the committee by at least november when he skipped the blue slip for a circuit court nominee? do you think that was a blip or this is a serious no-no that could really damage the way this goes forward? >> i think in the next couple of weeks we'll realize whether it's a pattern or a blip, but not only that, i think there is a real risk if they're not taking the questioning seriously. we talked about thomas barr misleading the committee, if he doesn't get another hearing and

that's not taken seriously that the under oath nominee is not answering questions accurately and that also undermines the whole process. why are people going through this questioning if they don't have to answer honestly. why do they fill out the senate questionnaire if it tells you to disclose potential conflicts of interest and you get away with it if you don't. so there's also the vetting process that is being undermined as well as all of the pace concerns and the blue slip concerns that it is just going to diminish the power of this committee and the whole senate. >> it also says something of what this person's capacity would be in the courtroom and they take an oath and you expect them to be truthful and you expect the judges and juries to weigh the truthfulness where you have a judge who has shown lack of respect for giving truthful testimony under oath with the senate and there's reason to have a little confidence that that person could ably carry out

their duties and responsibilities as a judge in a federal courtroom. >> do you see or expect the ideological tilt of trump's nominees extending to earn specialized courts to the u.s. court of appeals to the circuit where judges have been nominated based on specialized subject matter expertise. >> we've seen trump trying to create a pipeline by the court of federal claims by nominating two individuals, damian schiff and stephen schwartz who only because they're in a specialized court did not have to go through the aba qualification rating. i think it would have been very interesting to see what that rating would have been, particularly in light of the fact that at least one of them hadn't practiced law long enough to satisfy the bare minimum of qualification for the aba, but i think to the extent that we've seen the court of federal claims is the number of extremely ideological nominees have been put forth should have us all believe that there's no sort of

court that is going to be necessarily immune from the kinds of ideological pushes that we've seen to date. >> the stakes are high when it comes to federal district and circuit court and that's likely the place where we see some strategy really playing out and where we see a concerted focus to continue to put forth all of these, you know, again, radical outside the mainstream nominees. about 99.9% of cases that move through the federal court systems are cases that are in the district court and the circuit courts. so i continue to think that's the real place of focus. >> i think you're right because we've seen chuck grassley and mcconnell recognizing how important they are. so we may, i think, continue to see nominations that are put forth, but whether or not they are sort of just kind of made as red meat thrown to a particular

part of their base and then they don't actually move through the system very, very quickly, i think we can continue to see that kind of a trend. >> all right. any more questions? i see a woman with a card. also, my wife just texted and asked how's it going? >> take a judge with a clear past bias. any chance that recusal comes up? interesting. >> i love that question. i really love that question. i think there are several that have clear bias if their record and let's just take one man we haven't talked about yet. bush was one of the two people that -- i forget his name, john bush? he was one that nina toeberg named the bloviating bloggers

and this guy blogged on so many different issues that i think a recusal motion would certainly be in order for several of them, but don't forget, recusal motions are often ruled on at least first by the judge himself. so i can imagine a lot of recusal motions in the future for a lot of these nominees should they get confirmed and it would be interesting when blog postings become ways to recuse people because many of trump's nominees are bloggers so we have justice willette of texas and damian bush and i'm curious to see the first recusal motion based on an anonymous blog that was later attributed to the person or a judge. it's an interesting question, and i feel like we haven't seen that much, but it speaks to the fact -- >> has that ever happened? >> i'm sure it has, but not on a mass scale, but this being such

an unprecedented era where we are seeing radically truly biased individuals getting these lifetime appointments we may very well see lawyers that are saying, you know, my job is to provide the most zealous representation on behalf of my client and to ensure that my client is treated fairly, and if they feel like they've got a judge and they've been assigned to a judge where you know, bias is clear and apparent and was from day one, we might indeed see more recusal motions. >> it's an interesting, i think, question. >> it's important to swing back to when we were talking about to the chilling nature of what has happened and being able to offer an anonymous assessment of stephen grass and put on the record that portends to give you some shelter that you have concerns about this individual's bias, a recusal motion is the antithesis of that, right?

you are in front of the judge on behalf of a client actually making an acquisition that there is a reason to believe that this person cannot provide a fair hearing for your client. the risks and the stakes are so high that i think that there have been many conversations that i've had with colleagues about whether or not it is worth it to do that or not and in many ways demonstrates in so many ways how much all of this and how the entire system depends so much on good faith, right? people operating in good faith and when you see individuals failing to disclose in the nomination process itself, what does that tell you about sort of the good faith presumptions that have animated the system to date and whether or not those will continue to hold. it will be interesting and i think we may very well see some of those motions, but to anyone who is taking comfort in the fact that these nominees can be confirmed and don't worry if

they really are bias, recusal motions and should very quickly disabuse themselves of the sole comfort. >> what do you think if they're rude? nothing? >> the problem is it will probably got worse with the lifetime appointment, not better. >> true. >> is it a federal crime when a candidate falsely answer their judicial nominee questionnaires? >> aren't they under penalty of perjury? >> you would have to find someone to bring it. >> yeah. yeah. there probably is that cautionary language on there, but rare that anyone's actually stepped up to enforce. >> how valuable is diversity in having attended a public university and/or having worked in the non-profit sector and how does that diversity compare to race, gender and lgbt?

>> that's a very interesting question. i thought it was going to the bias on supreme court justices and how they all went to two different school, but is it a question about judges with different educational backgrounds? >> we talk about race, gender or sexual orientation and gender identity and i sometimes wonder why aren't we talking about the fact that almost all high-level judges have degrees, the same, very few and private universities and why almost all of them spend so much of their careers in for-profit law firms as opposed to many of these public interest non-profit organizations and aren't those the kinds of perspectives that are very, very valuable? >> diversity of perspective i think is really a key issue that i know a lot of people were fighting for in the diversity bucket in the last

administration, and making sure that there were some public interest lawyers and there were plaintiff's lawyers and there were people that didn't just go to harvard and yale, frankly and being considered for the circuit and supreme court. i echo your concern and also there is a class issue that i think you're touching on there, too that people have different perspectives, but what i think we're all saying is diversity on all these levels matters to both public confidence and the ability of a judge, you know, to see things impartially and to make sure that judges aren't stacked in one exact way against you. it's a very important way in terms of public institutions to private education. i think you're on to something that only comes up in the supreme court context where everyone seems to have gone to two schools. >> yeah, and i will just say that this is almost a topic for

another day, i separate panel discussion whether there is a singular, elitist path that someone needs to follow to seek position like a judgeship. it is most interesting. during the obama years we saw a mix of people with professional backgrounds who became defenders and the federal prosecutor would be one neat example and you know, here, i'd harken back to decades ago, just to underscore how right now at this moment we are turning the clock back in terms of progress. thurgood marshall was a civil rights lawyer who became a federal judge couand couldn't imagine someone who committed their professional careers to protecting the public interest, you know, appointing a civil rights lawyer to a federal court is not something that i think we would ever see from this

president. >> why? they might consider themselves civil rights lawyers. what's interesting about it is the mission evidence, and when you talked about kyle duncan, right? clearly on a mission, not for civil and human rights, for all of us, but on a legal mission, on an ideological mission, right? >> and with that, i think we're done. >> the judicial nominations wtf, and thanks to the panelists. >> i want to take a question moment to thank you all for being here for jen, kristen, christine and sharon, you have been incredible and for everyone, and they have all given us a lot to think about and a lot of different opportunities for us to be talking to our friends, family, coworkers, senators about and one thing i wanted to let you know is that acs does have a love our constitution initiative. so some of us will be spending valentine's day with our

constitution with article 2 section 2 and there is a whole powerpoint where you can go through and walk many of your friends and family and senators through this very process. you can talk about those things that might be giving you anxiety right now and there will be opportunities in which people can speak out about how important the courts are, how important judges are and how important it is that we still have a process that respects all of that and our values. so thank you all so much for being here this evening and thank you again to our panelists. >> that was really romantic. [ applause ] coming up here on c-span3, the supreme court oral argument over how the state of ohio purges the voter registration roles of those no longer eligible to vote and state

election issues and that will be followed by integrity and efficiency nationwide and how that can be improved. >> tonight, american history tv is in prime time and a look at a discussion on abraham lincoln's friends and enemies before and after his presidency at the symposium at gettysburg, pennsylvania. among the speakers, lincoln scholar harold holser and howard university professor edna green medford. american history begins at 8:00 eastern. president trump's address from the world economic forum in davos, switzerland. he's the first sitting u.s. president to speak at the forum since president clinton. you can see it tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> the president of the united states. [ cheers and applause ] >> tuesday night, president donald trump gives his first state of the union address to congress and the nation. join c-span for a preview of the

evening starting at 8:00 eastern and then the state of the union speech live at 9:00 p.m. and following the speech, the democratic response. we'll also hear your reaction and comments from members of congress. president trump's state of the union address tuesday night live on c-span. listen live with the free c-span radio app and available live or on demand on your desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org. the u.s. supreme court heard oral argument recently over ohio's approximately see of removing inactive voters from the registration roles. the case hustedv.a. philip randolph institute. he found his voter registration had been canceled. he didn't vote in 2009 and 2010 which triggered the purge. this is just over