elections, pennsylvania congressman scott perry debates his democratic rival george scott. live coverage of the tenth congressional district debate gets under way at 7:00 eastern and on c-span2 tonight, president trump, u.s. senate candidate at rosendale running against john tester. watch live coverage tonight at 8:30 eastern on c-span2, online at c-span.org any with the c-span radio app and the c-span network, your primary source for campaign 2018. on capitol hill yesterday the senate judiciary committee considered the nomination of several judges to serve in the southern districts of florida and allison to sit on the 4th circuit court of appeals. this is about an hour. >> our nominees and their

families. senator grassley asked me to head a statement here which i'm pleased to do. i'd like to briefly mention why we're holding this hearing, while the senate's in recess. it's because ranking member feinstein agreed to hold this hearing. the chairman, as a courtesy and accommodation to the ranking member twice postponed the hearing originally scheduled for september 26th and that forced the chairman to postpone the hearing scheduled for last week to today. >> the ranking member not only agreed to hold hearing on october 10, october 17 and october 24, but she also specifically agreed not to object to the timing of these hearings. let me read that again. the ranking member not only agreed to hold hearings on

october 10, october 17 and october 24, but she also specifically agreed not to object to the timing of these hearings. the ranking member was fully aware of the possibility the senate could go into recess in october when she consented to these hearing dates. without objection i will enter the relevant correspondence between the chairman and the ranking member as well as between their staffs into the record. senator hatch, do you have any opening comment you would like to make? >> no, mr. chairman. welcome to the folks who are here especially for this hearing, and i appreciate you chairing this hearing. >> thank you. we're going to start with miss rushing.

let me give her a quick introduction. >> do we have the statements from the senators to introduce the director? what statements do we have for miss rushing? >> senator tillis has -- senator tillis and senator burr have remarks that they would like to introduce into the record which we will do without objection. miss rushing graduated from wake forest university. she received her j.d. from duke law school. she then clerked for three judges, first with gorsuch on the 10th circuit followed by judge sentel and the district of columbia circuit and justice thomas of the united states supreme court. after these clerk ships, miss rushing has worked in private practice at williams and conley.

she became a partner there in 2017 and her practice focuses on appellate matters in the supreme court and the federal courts of appeal as well as in state courts of appeal. the committee has received letter in support of miss rushing's nomination including for more than 100 partners at her law firm, williams and conley. we've also received letters from court clerks from her time woring for sentel and justice thomas and we've also received a letter from longtime justice of the north carolina supreme court. without objection, i will enter these letters into the record and i'm going to hold off introducing our district court nominees. miss rush, would you come forward?

>> would you please raise your right hand? do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> please be seated. welcome. welcome to your family. if you have an opening statement, feel free to give it. if you could -- well, take all of the time you need. we normally give five minute, but if you go over a little bit that's okay. welcome. >> thank you. thank you, senator kennedy, thank you for the introduction and for chairing this meeting today. >> you bet. >> i would like to thank chairman grassley and all of the members of the committee for taking the time to consider my nomination. i'd also like to thank senator burr and senator tillis for their support and for their

confidence in me to serve in this role, and i am also grateful to the president for honoring me with this nomination. i don't have an opening statement, but i would like to make some introductions. i'd like to first introduce my husband blake who is sitting behind me. blake works as a management consultant. i would not be sitting here today were it not for his love and support. with blake is our son james who is 11 months old and the light of our lives. it is a joy every day to be his mother. i would also like to introduce my parent, david and lynette jones who made the trip from east rock, north carolina, to be here today. my parents were high school sweethearts at the same high school that i would vent ally attend in henderson county, north carolina and my father worked as an architect or builder for a part of his career and i can still point out some of the buildings in my hometown that my dad worked on. ultimately both my parents became teachers in the north carolina public school system where they devoted their lives

to educating students from all different backgrounds and helping them succeed. my parents gave my brother and me a foundation of unconditional love and taught us the value of hard work, education and kindness. and those things opened up the world to us. my brother, dr. kyle jones, could not be here today. he's a medical physicist at m.d. anderson the cancer hospital in houston, texas, but i believe he and his family are watching online. ifd like to thank judge davis sentelle of the d.c. circuit. he could not be here because he is actually hearing cases this morning, but his support and guidance has meant the world to me. judge sentelle and i are both from the mountains of north carolina, and for me, he is a model of the judicial temperament. he demonstrates southern civility both in agreement and in disagreement. i'm indebted to judge sentelle, justice gorsuch and justice

thomas for the investments they made in me as a young lawyer. i would like to thank my colleagues in williams and connelly and elsewhere, clients and friends across the political spectrum who have generously shown their support for my nomination in so many ways including attending this hearing and submitting letters of sub ort. it support. i will strive every day to live up to their esteem. it is a privilege to be here today. thank you for having me. >> senator hatch? >> just want to welcome you here. we are very proud of you and i am looking forward to supporting you in every way i possibly can. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. chairman? >> miss rushing, i want to talk a little bit about your job -- you graduated law school what year? >> i graduated from duke law

school in 2007. >> okay. and then what did you do? >> i clerked on two different federal courts of appeal. first the 10th circuit out in colorado, and then on the d.c. circuit. again, my law practice at williams and connolly after that. >> what year that was? >> that was in 2009, i believe. >> and how long were you at williams and connolly? >> i was at williams and connolly for about a year before i had the honor to clerk for justice thomas at the supreme court. >> what did you do that year? >> as a -- as a law clerk you are intimately involved -- >> no at williams and connolly. >> yes. i was an associate at williams and connolly and my practice then and now focuses largely on appeals in the federal courts appeals in the supreme court although i have taken a number of cases to trial in the district court. >> okay. all right. >> you tell me about the cases

you took to trial. >> sure. so i have taken two cases to jury verdicts, all of the way to verdict and two cases to judgment before district court judges and that's in addition to many other cases that don't quite get all of the way to judgment. >> what courts? >> those were in the southern district of new york and the d.c. -- the district court here in d.c. >> yes. >> they decided on the pleadings or did you have evidence? how did you do it? >> the two jury trials were multi-week trials in front of juries with lots of factual evidence and legal argument. one was out of the financial institutions reform recovery enforcement act which was a very novel new use of the statutes and a lot of interesting reasons and we were defending, my team and i were defending reporters

who were accused of defamation for exposing child labor. >> were you -- were you sitting first chair? >> i was not first chair. as i mentioned, those were multi-week trials and there were teams of attorneys involved. i was, especially in the defamation trial, i was in court every day arguing in front of the jury. >> how many people were on the team in the first trial? >> let's see, this is going to be a rough estimate. in the firia trial there were more than ten. >> where were you on the pecking order? >> in the -- in both cases i was -- i was crafting our legal arguments. in the firya trial was earlier in my career, and in the defamation case i was more running that side of the case. >> in the first case, did you take any witnesses? >> i did not take witnesses -- >> pardon? >> i helped prepare witnesses

and i mostly did the legal -- like many nominee, my career focused on appeal and i followed over 45 briefs on the supreme court including arguing in five of the circuit courts. >> you went to work for justice thomas and that would take you through what? 2011? >> that's right, senator. >> and then you came back to williams and connolly. i retired after clerking for justice thomas. >> okay. and so you've been there, what? seven years? you became partner in 2017? >> i did. i became partner effective january 1, 2017, and as you mentioned, virtually all of my partners have graciously supported me. they're politically a diverse group and i'm honored they support my nomination. >> did you have a mentor?

>> i'm forever indebted -- canon shamagan. who is actually sitting behind me who has worked alongside me in the appellate practice. >> is she senior to you there? >> cannon was a partner before i was so he appears on the letterhead above my name. >> qana, i don't recall when qana joined the firm, but it was before i did in 2009. >> okay. okay. i'm obviously asking questions about your experience you've been out of law school, what? 11 years? >> i believe that's right, senator. >> and you spent a lot of that time clerking. tell me about your major disappointment in life. >> that's an interesting question. major disappointment in life.

i'd like to think that everything happens for a reason, and even things are disappointing they turn out for the best. i was disappointed that i spent so much time focusing on my career instead of family, but thankfully i was blessed with a family, as well. i know it's very difficult sometimes for women in my profession to have both, to start a family when they're also working hard at a big law firm. >> have you ever failed at something and just had to pick yourself up and put one foot down and one foot after that. >> people who have known me as a child and in my adult years can tell you i fail at sports and i still enjoy them, but i -- i'm not very talented. >> sports is your biggest failure in life? >> it is among my failure, senator.

>> what's the worst mistake you ever made practicing law? thankfully working with teams of other lawyers usually helps us that if we make a mistake to catch it in time. i know there have been instances where i've been very grateful for my team members for following up on my work. in particular, i can think of, you know, the deadlines for filing various documents are very important. if you miss one it can be devastating to your case, and there are a number of times i've been grateful for associates on my teams catching my calculations in that regard. >> okay. >> is connolly managed by a

management committee or how does it work? or does it have just one king or queen? >> there is a group of attorneys who manage the firm. yes. >> okay. that was kind of a dumb question. see, i've already made a mistake. name me three partners, not the best, but three good senior partners at williams and connolly that you think are great lawyers. >> think all of the lawyers at williams and connolly are fantastic. i can start listing names, brandon sullivan comes to mine, kevin bane. three people who i have worked closely with and i greatly

admire. >> here's my question and i don't mean to offend you, but i don't think you're surprised at this line of questioning. why shouldn't we appoint them? they've been at it a while. they've had a little life experience. they've had disappointments and they've had to peck themselves up and get back on their feet and keep going. they've experienced a little bit of life. do you think that matters when you're making these kinds of decisions at the court of appeal? >> senator, i think the most important -- i think you're right that experience matters and i think i have the most relevant experience being a federal court of appeals judge and that's experience in the federal court of appeals and the supreme court. as i mentioned, my practice is focused there and my entire career. >> i'm talking about life experience, miss rushing. i'm talking about -- i clerked

for a federal judge and you were a star, that much is clear. you clerked great court of appeal judges and then you went to justice thomas and they went to williams and connolly and they probably gave you credit and a signing bonus because you were a star and your career has kind of been on steroids where you just kind of do, you know, an extension of researching and writing and getting witnesses ready and what i'm asking you is what about life experience? have you ever been in the trenches and in a trial and gotten your hands dirty and represented a client who couldn't pay you? >> senator, i have both been in the trenches and represented clients who can't pay me. first, i believe you have a letter from one of my clients who was in the trenches with me at trial talking about her experience. second, i represented numerous

individuals who could not afford to pay me. i've represented pro bono criminal defendants who have been found guilty of murder, three different cases on appeal in the maryland court system. i have represented a veteran seeking benefits before the federal circuit court of appeals and in fact, that was a case of first instance in front of the federal circuit and we made good law in that case to help the veteran and other veterans after him get the benefits they're entitled to. >> i don't want to -- even though i'm the chairman i don't want to abuse it. have you ever read a case out of a real case book? >> yes, senator. >> all right. tell me about the article you offered. you wrote an article that advocated strkter rules for standing in first amendment

religious cases. what was your thesis there? >> i believe you're referring to an article that i co-authored in law school. the primary author was a respected first amendment lawyer and i was flattered that he included me in the bylean, but i would have to admit that the thesis and the tone were his. the thesis is that the supreme court in 1982, that the plaintiffs in establish cases must have article 3 standing like any other case and that article 3 standing is not established simply by disagreeing with government action, but since 1982, the court has now returned to that question and has addressed cases where it would seem that would be a standing problem and that's a continuing issue in front of the supreme court. just a few months ago -- >> so you're advocating making it harder to bring a case

objecting to alleged co-mingling of church and state? >> no, i think the article took the position, just that this was something the supreme court addressed in 1982 and it's difficult to understand both for judges and practitioners, why the court hasn't raised the standing issue in other cases that would seem to be implicated and as i mentioned there was a case in the supreme court where never the congress and the members of that committee were trying to brief, urging the supreme court to decide this very issue. the question of article 3 standing and establishment clause cases. it's an open issue. >> if your provision prevails, would it make it easier or harder to file an establishment? >> so it would -- it depends on what's, pursued. it would enforce article 3. >> it would make it harder? well, in cases where there's only a fencer say, a monument,

it would impose that requirement. >> do you believe you're right, i'm sorry to interrupt you, but i don't want to go too far over. though we don't have any other people, did -- you filed this as an amicus. >> did you believe what you wrote? >> again, i was in law school at the time -- >> i of course, agreed with the law that i was researching, but the thesis came from the attorney on. >> yeah, but the attorney you did it with, did you look him in the eye and say, man, you're just dead wrong here? >> it's definitely an open question under the law? >> i'm a methodist. i was raised presbyterian. my parents founded two presbyterian churches. becky, when we got married, becky was a methodist and i was

presbyterian so we compromised and i became a methodist, but we helped found a methodist church, but i don't want the government telling me that i have to be a methodist or telling me what i have to believe, what god i have to worship, and i don't want the majority telling me that either because i said this to the judge now, thank the lord, justice kavanaugh. sometimes the majority means most of the fools are on the same side. i mean, i'm pretty keen on this idea of keeping the state and governme government separated. >> that's an important principle, senator, and i think the examples that you gave where an individual would have a particularized injury under article 3. any time the government tells someone you have to worship this way and you have to say under

god in the pledge and those are exam examples of exercise. >> we'll move to the second panel and please, i'm not trying to be rude. >> i can see your resume. you're a rock star, okay? but i think you have to have some life experience and williams and connolly is a great law firm. a lot of great lawyers there. tell me why you are more qualified to be on the 4th circuit than some of the williams and connolly law firms that have been there for 20 years, 25, 30 years in the trenches? >> again, senator, my experience in the federal courts of appeals and the supreme court are why i'm qualified.

not only the depth of that experience, but the variety. the judges on the courts of appeals get a wide variety of cases and i have that experience in criminal law, prisoner pettings, products liability, intellectual property, commercial dispute, constitutional issues and a vast array of federal statutes and i've litigated all of those cases on appeal, and i will be ready when those cases come before me if i am so fortunate to be confirmed. >> let me ask you one last question. >> do you know the name of the people who clean your office? >> i used to. i've been out on maternity leave until recently and the person change happened. >> who was it? >> it was anita for a long time. >> do you want to ask some questions, mr. chairman? >> sure. >> i'm very impressed with you. naturally, i know a lot of people down there and i've worked with that law firm over

various matters over my 42-year service here in the united states senate. it's a great law firm. you have a bunch of great partners. i know a number of them and have had a lot to do with most of them. all i can say that i'm very proud of you. i think you've handled yourself very well. some groups have chosen to use false narratives and misinformation and insinuations to oppose nominees. unfortunately, we're seeing the latest example of these attempts here. some groups have chosen to criticize you and other previous nominees for a connection with adf. adf group is widely respected and adf work has been effective and its effective use on free speech cases. imperical scotus which ranks

supreme court advocates said that adf was the most effective firm over the last five years based on a 4-0 record. these came in important cases like masterpiece cake shop. in fact, in the last seven years, adf has won nine cases in the supreme court and that's a pretty good indication to me that they are defending mainstream view. and they discredit nominees because of the kecks connection adf and if trying again they have failed again and the freedom restoration act and in fact, i was the author of it. religious liberty has been an important issue for me. so miss rushing, can you talk to us today about the importance of religious liberty in our constitutional system and tell us what your views are? >> of course. our country was founded by

people of different religions and people of no rell ij ijon together and it was founded on the idea that the government can't say what your religion should be, but the government also shouldn't prevent you from worshipping according to the dictates of your conscience. that's yet first amendment has both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause and those are important in the way they work together and as you mentioned, senator, congress has supplemented those with the religious land use and institutionalized persons act, and the states also have enacted their own acknowledging that protection for religious liberty is paramount and it goes back to the principles that our country was founded on. >> well, thank you. we hope these hearings and quite a few of the questions are normally focused on positions you argued in behalf of the client. can you tell us how you view the

differences between the position of an advocate and the role of a judge. >> certainly, as an advocate, my role is to zealously represent my client. there is an outcome in a case that my client would like to see and i do my best to research the law and help my client achieve that outcome. so i in some way find the outcome and then you look for the law and you look for the arguments to persuade the judge. a judge does not work from the outcome backward. a judge comes into the case with an open mind and here's the argument from both sides ands the reasoning and the law, and she follows the outcome rather than the other way around and that's an important distinction and one that i would confirm if i were to be confirmed. >> want to comment you for your legal acumen, for your experiences in law school and your experiences ever since. i acknowledge that your law firm

is one of the great law firms in this country and just to be chosen to serve in the law firm is a tremendous honor. i'm proud of you and i look forward to making sure you get through this process and serve on the federal bench. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. does anybody else have any questions? >> thank you, miss rushing. >> thank you, senator. >> all right. our second panel coming up, please?

okay. let me swear you in, folks. raise your right hand. do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give to the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing, but the truth so help you god? >> yes. >> please be seated. we have before us on our second panel nominees for district court. we have thomas patrick barber to be the united states district judge for the middle district of florida. wendy williams burger, united states district judge for the middle district of florida. corey langdon -- is it mays? he's been nominated by the president for the northern district of alabama. rodney smith, the united states

district judge of the southern district of florida, and thomas kent weatherall, did i say that right? [ inaudible ] >> the second to be united states district judge for the northern district of florida. we'll turn to opening statements. you each have five minutes if you go over, you won't get tased or anything. >> well, good morning. i'm honored and humbled to be here with you all today to participate in the advice and consent process given to us by the constitution. i want to thank chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, you, senator kennedy, for presiding today and all of the members of the judiciary committee and your staff for giving us a hearing. i appreciate that very much. i want to thank the president for nominating me, obviously, and i would like to especially thank our home state senatorses, nelson and rubio for all of their help and the help of their staff in this process.

you may know, from florida, we have a bipartisan judicial nominating that comes from naples, florida in the south to jacksonville in the north and i want to thank their 35 members for their work on these judicial nominations. they don't get a lot of credit and they don't get paid, but they work very hard. i would like to next turn to introduce my friends and family who are here. starting with my wife, diane. she's my strongest and most loving supporter. she and i actually met when she was identified as a possible witness in a federal court case i was working on. she's a wonderful parent. she's a music teacher and we have our two children here. elizabeth and ben. elizabeth is a high school senior and she's hoping to go to the court guard academy or the merchant marine academy and having a career in the military and our sophomore is in high school and he's active in a lot of musical groups and is working on completing the requirements

for eagle scout. we are very proud of both ben and elizabeth as parents. i also want to acknowledge my parents and in-laws, none of which are here. my mother dorothy is 93 going on 63, but she can't come up from florida to be here today. hopefully she's watching on the internet as well as my mother-in-law carol nower who is in central illinois and she's also hopefully watching on internet. my dad did die when i was very young and i did lose my father in law recently, and neither could be here for that reason. my brother ed barber is here and my sister-in-law linda, and my wife's cousin, linda dannowits and i thank them for that. lastly, i want to thank my judicial colleagues back home in tampa, florida. for the last 14 years i've had the opportunity to work with a distinguished, hardworking, con

yef conscientious judges, federal court is important, but the state court is where most of the public comes for their connection to the legal system and i thank them and appreciate their support and i look forward to any questions you may have. thank you. >> judge berger? >> again? >> better? thank you. >> good morning, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before this committee. i want to begin by think thatting president trump for nominating me and having faith in my ability to serve as united states district judge for the id innel district of florida. i want to thank chairman grassley and ranking member feinstein and thank you, senator kennedy, for presiding today. i would like to thank the bipartisan judicial nominating commission for considering my application and forwarding my name to my home state senators. i would like to thank senator rubio and senator nelson for

meeting with me and considering my nomination and for their support moving forward. in addition, i want to thank the attorneys and the white house's counsel's office and the department of justice and the office of legal policy for their assistance throughout the nomination process. i have not prepared an opening statement, but i would like to recognize my friends and family who are in attendance today. my mom pat williams and my sister jennifer maycumber and my niece addison travelled from st. augustine, florida, they drove to be here today. they are both a constant source of love and support and encouragement, and i thank them so much for just being here. though not physically here, i know that my dad is here in spirit. he was my biggest fan, and most vocal, probably, and i love him and i miss him. my parents were married for 48 years before my dad passed away, and they instilled in me a value system and a work ethic that i carry with me today. they taught me that when you

give somebody your word, you honor it. if you start a task, you complete it and if you want something you work for it and those three simple lessons have worked for me both personally and professionally in my life. my dear friend ann marie who is an attorney in st. augustine is here as well as my friend and former colleague in governor bush's office carlos muniz is here with me, as well. i thank them all for their support and for their coming to show it today. >> finally, i'd like to recognize my husband larry and my children, griffin in georgia who are seated behind me. he's not a lawyer and he's a successful businessman, currently serving as vice president of the company his grandfather started over 75 years ago. he is my best friend and my better half and i love him dearly. i'm thankful to him for

supporting me throughout my career and for being such a great father to our children and a better person and i thank god every day for bringing him into my life. my son griffin is 20 and a senior at florida state university majoring in business. he loves politics and maybe one day he'll be seated where you all are. my daughter georgia is 15. she's a sophomore in high school and one day she might be decorating somebody's homes because i think she has a pension for interior design. they're smart. they're respectful. they're honest and they're kind, and i love them beyond all measure. they are my greatest accomplishments and they encompass my proudest moments and no personal or professional success in life compares to being their mom. unfortunately, time doesn't permit me to thank everybody that has supported me, but i hope they know that i am eternally grateful for their encouragement. a few, however, before i close and i'd like to thank.

i'd like to recognize my family that's not here, aunt, uncles, cousin, my mother-in-law and father-in-law, greg and donna berger and my sister-in-law, jada, sydney and logan and my brother-in-law who is a firefighter and at homeworking and my colleagues in the 4th district court of appeal and my colleagues on the circuit court and my colleagues in the governor's office and the state attorneys office. additionally, i want to thank my judicial assistant cindy beshan and my law clerk for the support that they have given me and lastly, but not least, i want to thank my trinity family for lifting me up in prayer. i am truly blessed. with that said, senator, i appreciate your consideration and my nomination. >> i too, want to thank senator grassley and ranking member feinstein for this hearing. i want to thank you, senator kennedy and senator hatch, for

coming in on your time off. we definitely appreciate you being here today. like my colleagues i want to start by think thatting president donald trump for giving me this great honor. unlike my colleagues i'm not from florida and i'm from alabama and it's my great honor to thank my senators. for senator shelby who i cannot thank enough for putting me here today, recommending me here for the president and also for the support that he and his staff, katie and clay have shown me throughout this process. they have been great to me all along. i also want to thank senator doug jones who graciously took the time to meet with me and to support me with his blue slip, like my colleagues here at the table, it makes me very proud to say that i am the product of a bipartisan support. like everyone else, i don't have the time to thank everyone who is watching and everyone who has supported me. there are literally people around the world and my sisters in asia at 10:30 p.m. right now

watching this. i want to thank each and every one of you. you have meant the world to me and there are four people who i want to thank in lieu of an opening statement because i wouldn't be here without any of them and first is my wife christy and she's supported me each step of the way. she has pushed me in some of those steps when i needed it and i would not be here today if it weren't for her. second, my parents who like my colleague, they were married over 40 years. they were public servants and served no one more than they did their kids. my mom was a public school teacher for 40 years. she should be volunteering, but she took the day off so she could watch her son testify in front of congress. my father, unfortunately, passed away in the last few months and in a military's veterans home. i don't think my father understood what an honor his son would be given and this brought

me closer to home and that made me happy, too. jack miller made this city a part of my life and this profession part of my life more than 20 years ago. he is 92 years old. he is sharp as a tack and nothing makes me happier today than knowing that he is watching today and that he is getting to see what has become of my career, and i thank him for being such a big part of it and finally, i want to thank my colleagues at the alabama attorney general's office. i know that they're watching today because they've told me so. they're gathered around streaming this live at the office. they should get back to work soon, but in the meantime, i want to let them know that i have learned from you and with you, and i greatly thank you for everything that you have done. should the senate confirm my nomination it would make me proud to say that like many of you and both my parents that i would have spent my entire career in public service and that is a great honor. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. smith? >> good morning. it is a blessing and an honor to be here.

i want to thank chairman grassley and ranking member feinstein for holding this hearing to consider my nomination. i want to thank you, senator kennedy, for presiding over this hearing as well as senator hatch and the other members of this committee. i want to thank president trump for having the faith can confidence in my ability to serve as southern district judge for the district florida, and i want to thank the white house counsel, and i want to thank the florida settled judicial nominating commission that netted the application and qualification. i want to thank senator nelson and senator rubio for their support. at this time i would like to introduce or acknowledge, family members and friends that travel to our nation's capital on support my nomination beginning with my beautiful, loving and intelligent wife of 15 years dr. tangela smith. she's a learning pathologist for

the public schools and she's a wonderful mother that blessed us with two amazing, talented and very smart children. bee have our daughter morgan. she's 12 years old in the seventh grade and our son bryce who is 7 years old in the second grade. both are honors students and i know that because i check their grades, and i want to say congratulations to the both of them and she would be very busy this year especially if i'm confirmed before december 25th. i want to thank their school, calvary christian academy, not only for their present support, but for recognizing to have our children to observe this invaluable judicial process and when this process is over and no matter what the circumstances are, i hope that i have inspired our children to stay humble and never doubt your faith, never abandon your dreams and never compromise your integrity because one day you both could be sitting where your dad is.

i love you unconditionally. i want to thank my mom sharon for her love and support. i want to thank my friends, larry henfield, an extraordinary attorney and philanthropist. my friend and neighbor of 15 years. hans, he's the city attorney for florida, my friend samuel musterford, executive director for the county public schools. my friend chris norwood of nor norwood cathedral church where we have the senior pastor and teacher. we have from the church, elder robert tyler and their daughter sydney tyler. there are other family members, friends and my colleagues on the state and federal bench and my judicial assistant and bailiff watching this hearing online. lastly, i want to thank

tangela's parent, julius and rebecca george and they live in makely, georgia, and unfortunately they're not here because they were impacted by hurricane michael impacted the home of my aunt and uncle in tallahassee. please know that our hearts, thoughts and prayers are with them and many others who were also impacted. in closing, i humbly and respectfully ask that every senator vote in favor of my nomination to serve on the united states district court for the southern district of florida. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> judge smith, is this bryce behind you here? bryce, how are you, man? you got anything you want to say? if you do, just holler. okay? okay. good to see you. go ahead, judge. >> thank you, senator. first, like my colleagues i want to thank senator grassley, chairman grassley, and ranking

member feinstein for scheduling today's hearing and senator kennedy, thank you, and all the members who came today for the hearing. next, i'd like to thank senator rubio and senator nelson for their support of my nomination, as well as lieutenant governor lopez quintara and members of the nominating commission that recommended me to the senator. of course, i want to thank president trump for nominating me. i am deeply humbled and honored by the confidence he's shown to me through this nomination. it is without question the highlight of my professional career. finally, i'd like to thank the white house attorneys and the -- excuse me, the justice department attorneys for their guidance through this process. i would not be here today without my wonderful family who shows me unconditional love and support. with me today is my wife, edie. we've been married for 23 years. she's my best friend. closest confidant. biggest supporter and a wonderful mother to our two children. and edie is the ultimate team player. yesterday was her birthday.

and he spent it helping me prepare for this hearing rather than celebrating. so i owe her a nice dinner tonight. unfortunately, our children were not able to be here with us today. they both have school and other activities at home that they could not miss. our daughter, emily, is a sophomore at florida state university and a third-generation semiseminole. she originally planned to educate in elementary education but recently made the mock trial team and is now thinking about going to law school. our son, ty, is a sophomore at chiles high school which was named after former governor and u.s. senator lawton chiles. ty is a retired little league baseball player and avid hunter and fisherman and all around great kid. i'm extremely proud of boat th them. i also want to recognize my participants who are both watching today's hearing online. my mom is a retired high school and college math teacher. she instilled me good education,

a lifelong love of learning and caption for others mind dad i. a my dad is the strongest person i know and instilled in me the value of hard work, perseverance and importance of public service. i would not be here today without the strong foundation my parents gave me and nafor that i'll be forever grateful. i want to recognize my mother-in-law, peggy watson and the entire watson family. they welcomed me into their family from day one and have been extremely supportive over the years. i only wish my father-in-law, zick watson, was alive to see this today. he was a longtime trial judge and mentor to me on and off the bench. if i end up being half the judge he was, i will have done all right. i want to acknowledge the many lawyers and judges i've worked with over the course of my career, the hopping law firm, florida attorney general's office, the division of administrative hearings and the 1st district court of appeals. i've been fortunate to work with many smart and talented people. while i can't thank them all

individually here today,ively f making me a better lawyer, judge and person. thank you, again, for the opportunity to be here. i look forward to answering the committee's questions. >> thank you. senator hatch? >> i just want to congratulate all of you. i support each and every one of you. i'm proud of you. as a former federal trial lawyer, i really appreciate particular positions that you're nominated for. i'll do a everything in my power to make sure your nominations go through easily. so, thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> i've got to leave, but i just want you to know, i wanted to stay in and hear each one of you say what you wanted to say. thanks. >> senator crapo snr? >> . >> thank you. i want to thank every one of you

for the willingness to serve our country. in these days, often the pressures and the difficulties that come with being willing to step up are intense. and it's important that people like you are willing to step up and help serve and make this american nation strong and in your cases, helped to make sure that our bedrock system of being a nation of law and order is protected and strengthened. so i thank you all for that very much. i don't have any questions for any of you, so no problems there. thank you. >> senator sasse? >> thank you, chairman. i would also like to, first of all, congratulations to all five of you. before i direct a couple questions to you, i'd just like too make a comment an allison jones' rushings nomination. i know some important comments were raised about age and age and life experience obviously do

matter. i'd also like to underscore the fact, though, that relevant appellate experience is incredibly important.er partner. i'm a nonlawyer. this is a superlawyer. unlike the regular chairman of our committee, chairman grassley, or like the chairman, i'm not an attorney. but as i've gotten to know many many of the nominees coming before this committee, one of the things i've realized is that senior partners often spend a lot of their time on administrative and management duties and people who help lead the appellate practices often have really distinguished k credenti credentials. we have numerous examples. people like now-justice neil gorsuch. edith jones. the most impressive people that ended up widely respected in the circuit courts in this country were often folks who came from an appellate background and put on the circuit courts at a young age. senators burr and tillis, the white house counsel's autopsy a office and president trump have take ben judicial selection.

miss rushing, somebody who's going to be confirmed and serve with distinction on the appellate court . to the five of year, there's a lot going on. something that troubles me the most is a new category we have, we talk about speech we don't like as potentially a form of violence. i would just love if we can start there with you at the end. i'd like toe come down the line. if you can give kind of the john kennedy, our chairman, has a great device he uses, prefetend i'm a high school sophomore and have not been paying attention. what's the 1st amendment about? >> well, senator, as a parent of a high school sophomore, i feel qualified to answer that. >> please don't overshare.

>> yeah, it's about freedom of speech. and the part that maybe you're getting at is also freedom of religion, obviously, but i was taught the 1st amendment was about the marketplace of ideas and it was a good thing if people had disagreements to talk about then we hashed them out and each figured out what the truth was. so to me, presidentthe 1st amen the marketplace of ideas. the area of religion, you know, obviously, it's each person has a right to pursue whatever reas religious calling they happen to feel. it's it a methodist or a ca cathol catholic, or what have you. those are my brief thoughts as i would explain them to my son, ben, who's here, who's a tenth grader. >> ben, you got off easy. >> the. 1 1st amendment establishes many freedoms. the right to free speech as you discussed.

freedom of religion. freedom to express yourself. freedom to assemble. things that we all consistently think about during the day. although maybe not a vertly. would we ever be able to give up one of those freedoms and still be a nation? it's something to think about and something we need to talk to our children, school-aged children, about. but for me, they're fundamental freedoms that should be protected. to your question about freedom of speech, we have to be free to express ourselves. and that means we have to be able to listen to contrary views. if we're going to have free speech, it's free speech for everyone. republican, democrat, everyone. regardless of their personal, political views. that's what makes our country great. that we can debate these issues and can do so civilly. i hope we can do so civilly. >> yeah, it's a republic if you can keep it. >> exactly.

>> sir? >> my answer to your direct question would be the 1st amendment is a limit on the power of the government. like all of the amendments. it is a limitation, in this instance, of the government on what you can say. like my colleagues, i agree that the point of the 1st amendment is to allow us to say what we think is necessary. the same reason we have the right to assemble or to petition the government. we should not be protected against opposing viewpoints. even if we find them hurtful or that we just strongly disagree, persons must be able to say that because that's how american discourse has led to this great nation. >> well said. the american idea is that god gives us rights by nature, and government is just our shared project to secure those rights. government isn't the author or source of those rights so government is limited so that the people and the dignity of people can be played out in a marketplace of ideas and persuasion and community and love and beer. sir? >> i agree with my fellow

colleagues that said, i'd like to add that it's the freedom of expression to feel and see what you believe. however, there's always limitation in terms of how the speech -- if it's going to injure somebody. you can't just yell, fire, in a theater. so you can't say and do what you want to do. however, you should be able to express yourself in a decent manner. wh without worrying about someone being offended. always draws a line in terms of how does the speech impact someone physically and that's my understanding, why the country enjoys that. you can't even criticize any elected leaders in certain countries. america is the bedrock of that. you can't get punished. you agree with somebody's views or not. that's what makes this country beautiful. >> thank you, i appreciate where you ended. i want to ask one clarified question. the beginning part. you clearly can't use your speech to incite someone else to violence, can't scream fire in a crowded movie house. just because people differ about theology, if they differ about heaven and hell, it's not the government's job to sort that out because it might hurt

somebody else's freelineelings,? we're protected to disagree about things that are big and well beyond the pay grade of government. >> correct. >> thank you, sir. >> senator, i don't think i can add much to what they colleagues are have said. i think the 1st amendment captures the essence of our freedom to say, do, and believe what we individually want to. maybe not to the high school sophomore, but down a little bit further, i kind of go back to the sticks and steae stones may my bones but words will never hurt me. protect the things you want to hear as well as the things you don't want to hear. we should not be afraid of or fear words that might hurt our feelings because the more -- the more words in the public discourse, the more speech in the marketplace, is a good thing. it advances us as a society rather than holds us back. >> well said.

the american idea is the response to speech you don't like is more speech. not less speech. bigger and better debates and ideas and more persuasion. thank you, all, very much. congratulations on your nominations. >> thank you. >> thank you. before i forget, for the record, senators rubio, shelby, and jones submitted statements of introduction and support. without objection, they'll be admitteded into the record. i want to talk just for a few minutes about universal or nationwide injunctions. do you all know what i'm talking about? that's where a single federal district judge can enjoin, let's say, a prosecution of a particular statute. i don't know how many federal district court judges we have. let's call, say 600.

i don't think that's too far off. one federal district court judge can enjoyin a statute, let's sa, nationwide. shut it down. even if the other 599 district court judges disagree. in other words, you're not limited to your own jurisdiction. everybody following me? okay 37 let's start with judge wetherell. what's the legal basis for that? because you're going to be faced with it. >> senator, i understand the concern you're expressing. i want to be very careful here because the issue about the legal authority for nationwide injunctions is an issue that's currently percolating through and, the courts. i don't think it would be appropriate for me to -- >> i'm not asking you to tell me what the law to be. i'm asking you to tell me what

the legal basis for it is, what is the law is. >> well, i think, senator, that fundamental question of what the legal base, is there authority for judges to enter nationwide injunctions is the question that justice thomas spoke about in the -- in the travel ban cases this past year. and so i think that issue, that fund fundamental issue, is before us. i think what you're getting at is the issue sir rouurroundin i some things the court has to look at, is that beyond the court's authority to provide relief to parties that are not before the court? it's an article 3 standing issue, as i understand, the fundamental concern because once the court gets beyond adjudic e adjudicating the case in the parties directly before it, the concern can be that the court is acting more like congress, which is acting, affecting people who are not necessarily before it. those are the issues. >> can you tell me what the legal basis is?

>> with respect to the legal basis on that issue nationwide, i would have to look at the brief. as a sitting judge, i preside over 2,000 cases and to give an opinion of something i don't have the brief of both sides i think is coming upon me to have, give everyone a full and fair opportunity to be heard before i just render an opinion on a subject that i have yet to experience. >> okay. mr. maze, what's legal basis? >> i think the legal basis would be only if as judge wetherall said if the party was in your district as a party in the case and that point you would have jurisdiction over that party. i, too, would share concerns over enjoining parties outside of your district who are not before you. that said, i'm not really sure i should go any further under cannon 5. at this point we'd be stepping into an open political controversy. >> what's legal basis, judge burr? >> i think i would echo what mr. maze said. i liken it to if the case has

not been decided by other district courts that it's binding on them all until another court decides much as if we were to render a decision on our court that's a first impression that the other district courts have not ruled upon, then every coutrial court the state of florida would be bound by our state decision unless the supreme court said otherwise. >> senator, i'll confess, i'll say this much, i don't know a lot about that. i took a lot of courses in law school in federal courts. i never learned about that. i was never taught. so it seems rather new. and congress controls the jurisdiction of the federal courts. i remember that. that's all i can answer for you. >> fair enough, judge. i'm not going to ask you, any of you, what the law ought to be. i want to be very clear.

i don't have any intention to ask whether you agree with a certain supreme court case or you don't. but i am going to ask you a question that is on my mind. tell me what the law is. today. as you unction derstand it. some universities in our great country, and i do not say this in a pejorative sense. i think it's a factual sense. contend that they have figured out a way in college admissions to dis criminacriminate in the y way, that there is a moral way to discriminate. and i understand that's being litigated so i'm not going to ask you about that. i want you to tell me what your

understanding of law is. i'll start with judge barber. on using ethnicity as a factor in admissions to a university today. just the state of the law. as you understand it. >> all right. well, i'll go back to law school again. this isn't something that i work with in my job as a trial judge, but there's the baalke case where i think they analyzed it in terms of diversity was an affirmative educational value that colleges could take into account. there was a later case from the university of michigan where that was flushed out a little bit more. i have not read that case. and that's the kind of universe of my knowledge of the subject, frankly. >> okay. judge berger? >> i believe that colleges may use, and i'm having to draw back because it's not something i've actually thought about, but i do believe that they can use

ethnicity as a factor in diversity of students but i'm not all together sure, to be perfectly honest. >> okay. i'd go to two places. first, i'd start with the 14th amendment which ensures equal protection for all persons regardless of race, and, therefore, because this would be a racial classification, you would apply strict scrutiny. i know that senator kennedy, you're referencing the harvard case. i know we're not talking about it specifically, but that's what's in the news. that would be a little different because harvard is a private institution. if it were a government skchool like michigan, for example, we'd look at scritrict scrutiny. i'm not going to comment on what should be done in the harvard case for cannon reasons. we'd have to look at what supreme court precedent is on point. as judge barber said, the court has interpreted the 14th the amendment in sempb wcertain waye as district court judges would apply those cases to facts of whatever case we would get. >> judge smith?

>> yes, likewise, my colleagues have said, i believe a scrutiny test would apply. the government has to have a compelling interest. there has been others addressed. i think texas versus -- if my memory serves correctly on those issues. >> okay. judge wetherell? >> senator, i think i will have to claim slight ignorance as judge barber did, that's not an issue that has come before me on the time i've been on the appellate court. my general recollection is consistent with him, it's a factor that can be considered as part of a larger cafeteria factors with the goal of promoting diversity in the student body. beyond that, i would have to look at the briefs and the arguments and do a little more research when the issue came before me. >> okay. fair enough. all right. let me ask you this and the role of legislative history. i think it's generally accepted supreme court practice now,

precedent, that all justices have accepted. first thing you look at is a statute. and you ask is it ambiguous? and if it's not ambiguous, you don't go any further. right? y we agree on that? if it is ambiguous, you can go further. you can look at other things. if you have a statute in front of you that's ambiguous, in your judgment, that you're asked to construe, to what extent, if any, i'll start down here with judge wetherell, do you think the courts should rely on legislative history? >> senator, i guess i would answer that in two different ways depending upon what you mean by legislative history. if you mean by legislative

history floor statements, committee reports and the like, i think those would be much further down in the toolbox, so to speak. if you're speaking -- >> as opposed to what? >> as opposed to looking at the progression of the legislation from the version previous, to the version present, to see what change was made in helping you understand what the -- what the current ambiguous language means. you might look back to the prior language and assume that congress intended to make some sort of change, so perhaps that would be a tool that would help you interpret that language. >> okay. judge smith? >> yes, i would look at the -- another statute on the same subject areas because the legislative history, anything leading up to the enactmentme o the statute, is not law. if i don't find anything that on the same subject, i would just give it as plain ordinary meaning and a reasonable interpretation. >> okay. >> little to none. i think if the answer can be gotten by reading the text, that should end the case.

as a district court judge, if the supreme court or the. 11th circuit in our instance has interpreted that text, we're bound by those interpretations but you can find the answer in the text or in the precedent of our superior courts, i would not look at the legislative history. it would be essentially a last-case scenario. >> okay. judge berger? >> i do this every time. senator, i think legislative history in the form of floor speeches, staff analysis, are a great tool for a high school history project, but not a good tool for judging. and so i don't think that what you would say on the floor in a speech or what a staffer would put in a report reflects the reason why senator hatch might vote for the law or senator sasse. you cannot derive legislative intent from that type of legislative history. i think you look -- i would look

in terms if you consider legislative history a prior version of a similar statute to see if something was added or deleted, that might give us some hint on -- for to clear up some ambiguity, but beyond that and beyond precedent out of the 11th circuit court of appeal, the u.s. supreme court, then that's what i would rely on. >> okay. judge barber? >> well, i've got the easy spot at the end on that one, senator. i would agree with my colleagues. just maybe add a little nuance of my own. i could see a situation where the legislative history was very, very clear. sometimes you all do agree. almost all of you on things. and, perhaps, in that situation, if the statute were for whatever ambiguous, that would be something i think would matter. i would be willing to look at that. otherwise, probably i'd be a little suspicious for the reasons mentioned. >> okay. judge barber, let me -- >> this will be my final question. how long have you been a lawyer?

>> 25 years, i think. >> okay. >> how many years did you practi practice? >> 13. >> okay. and you've been a lawyer 25? >> yes. >> how long you been a lawyer, judge berger? >> since 1992. >> 25. >> 26? >> 26. how long have you been a lawyer, mr. maze? >> 15 1/2. >> how about you, judge smith? >> 18 years. >> 18 years. how about you, judge wetherell? >> i'm trying to do the math. i was admitted to bar in 1985 so i think that's 23? >> yeah. okay. >> senator, could i correct the record? those of us who are lawyers are not good at math. >> most -- >> i just realize i've been a lawyer 26 years. i'm sorry. >> well, congratulations to each of you on your nomination. i don't have any more questions. bryce, do you have anything?

nothing. >> okay. bryce, come up to the microphone. >> you got anything to say, bryce? tell us what you think, man. you get anything you want for lunch. you have been so good. >> it's safe for us to learn about it, so keep or -- and so we cannot say bad words to god because he -- >> that is way cool. >> vote for my daddy. >> i don't want you to run against me, bryce. >> all right. let's see what else my team here is telling me i have to do. thank you for your testimony. i suspect members will have written questions for you which you can expect next week. we'll keep the record open one week. thank you so much. congratulations.

and i enjoy this very much. >> thank you, senator. >> the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you.

>> congress is on break for the midterm elections next month, we're showing american history tv if primetime. tonight it's a conference on the american west hosted by the aspen institute. historians talk about westward expansion after the louisiana purchase in 1803. kit carson and other mountainmen and the impact expansion had the civil war and slavery. american history tv in primetime begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. and c-span this evening, 19 days before the midterm elections, pennsylvania congressman scott perry debates his democratic rival george scott. coverage of the tenth congressional debate gets under way at 7:00 eastern. on c-span2 tonight, president trump campaigns in missoula, mt. m montana, for matt rosen dale running against senator jon

tester. watch live coverage tonight at 8:30 eastern on c-span2. online at c-span.org and the free c-span radio app. c-span network, primary source for campaign 2018. over the next hour, we're going to show you a series of discussions on teens using e-cigarettes and vaping. we begin with fda commissioner dr. scott gottlieb. he talkeded to the online news publication, axios, about steps the agency is taking on children vaping. >> and next it's our honor to have the 23rd commissioner of food and drugs of the united states. he practiced medicine as a hospital physician. he was a residesident fellow at american enterprise institute. before that, residency internal medicine at mt. sinai medical center in new york. and studied econ at wesleyan university in it middletown, connecticut. we have some friends there. it's an honor to welcoo