strict constructionist. is that your general philosophy? >> i think at the time i made those comments, which was upon my transferring from the superior court to the court of appeals, i made those comments to a reporter. what i intended to convey was my fidelity to the rule of law and my fidelity to the limited role of a judge in our democracy and intended to contain my respect for the limited role of a judge. and that is to not decide cases based on public opinion, to not decide cases based on public clamor, but to decide cases based on the faithfulness to the rule of law and the doctor and -- doctrine of stare decisis. >> normally a strict constructionist is one looks very specifically and judges would say faithfully to the text of the constitution and the philosophy is to avoid going beyond what is actually written in the text of the constitution. is that a fair description? >> as my understanding, yes, sir, it is a form of constitutional interpretation and analysis. >> 2004 use of privacy is not "in the context or in the text

of the constitution." >> i'm not familiar with having said that, senator. i'm happy to respond later if i can find out where that quotation might've come from. i am not familiar with having said that. >> well, you stated it in 2004. limited your chance to explain now. if the right of privacy is not specifically dial-in needed were described in the text of the constitution, is it still equally valid as a rule of law? >> yes, sir, i believe the easy answer to that question is that i would ace every decision on rights of privacy, fundamental rights, and use a constitutional interpretation model that is based on precedents of the 11th circuit.

>> so you would now allow -- not allow your view of the constitution would interfere with any way with the right to private individuals that would come before you? >> absolutely not, senator. >> let me ask you about another part of your record. he supported legislation that would require doctors to report the number of abortions they perform. would you tell us why you supported that legislation? don't you think it was ill-advised? >> senator, let me respond this way. the legislation you refer to was an amendment eight on the for the house of representatives. it was not an amendment that i drafted. it was not an amendment i was familiar with. it came up on the floor of the house in the routine of handling the business of legislature for

that day. i supported measures like that and including that because those issues were very important to the people that i represented. my constituents as a state that is later were 38,000 citizens in one county in southeast georgia for the first two years i served. the district grew a little larger than that. but that district is a very conservative and a very conservative and very pro-life constituency. i believed it was the obligation of a legislator to vote come listen to, and for the will of the constituency. those issues were very important to my constituents, and that is why supported that amendment. >> that amendment came within a few years after and before attacks on doctors who provided abortions or visits. would you agree with me that it was a mistake to support the kind of amendment? >> in light of what i subsequently learned, yes, sir, i do not think it would be appropriate to be listing the names of doctors that perform abortions within what was then the georgia patient right to know act, which dealt

predominantly with litigation that doctors have been involved with and the ability of patients to see that information. >> thank you. my time has expired. and i would turn to the ranking member grassley. >> it might surprise you, but i'm going to ask you a lot of questions, and i am going to ask similar questions to what you did. and i hope the rest of you do not feel let out. [laughter] you surf the past 10 years as -- again, to judge boggs -- as an elected state court judge. in this election could you run under any particular party? >> no, sir. georgia's judges are elected nonpartisan at the level i ran. >> so your role has been -- >> and charlie. >> 2001, and you said you were elected as a democrat to the georgia general assembly, right? >> that is right. >> you been criticized by some groups were some of the policy

positions you took as a legislator. for instance, as a legislator united pro-life voting record, you supported traditional marriage. i have asked you a couple questions. if i'm going to read something that you said -- first i will read something you said during senate resolution 595. this resolution recognizes marriage as the union between a man and a woman in a statement on the resolution you said it is my opinion both as a christian and as a lawyer and as a member of this house, and as a member of this house is our opportunity to stand up in support of this resolution." so please explain what you meant by the statement. >> i have clearly meant that my

personal opinion was at the time over a decade ago that i was in support of the proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage. my position on that, senator, may or may not have changed since that time, as many peoples have over the last decade. moreover, my position on that as reflected by those personal comments in 2004 have never had any import whatsoever in how i decided raises or how i analyze issues, both as a trial court judge and as an appellate court judge. >> is it fair to say that your christian faith informs her policy positions as a legislator? >> yes, sir. >> by contrast, how does your christian faith affect you in your decision-making assistance as a judge -- decision-making processes as a judge? >> it has never, senator. >> is there anything in your personal views that would make it impossible for you to apply the laws of a federal judge even

if you disagree with it? >> no, sir. >> you've also said i was proud to represent you, i tried to base all my decisions on common sense conservative values that are based on the fact that i was raised in a christian home and that has given me true family values. again, do you hold any personal or religious views that make it impossible for you to apply the law as a federal judge even if you personally disagreed with it? >> absolutely not, senator. >> further, as i mentioned, you been criticized for your legislative record with respect to a portion during her time in the legislature. cosponsored bills that would help encourage women to encourage adoption and a bill that required minors to accompany -- to be accompanied by parent or guardian before

getting an abortion. three questions in regard to that -- there may be some concern that your views on per have many years experience as a .udge were there any times and decided based on your applicable precedent? >> if fortunate enough to be confirmed, that would never happen. >> mr. cohen, you have been

litigation with the voter id law. i have three questions in regards to that. can you describe who you were representing in these cases and how you became to be involved in them? >> when i went into private it was a variety of high-profile litigation. there was the affirmative-action program and that passed by a predominantly democratic georgia assembly. involved in the enactment of those policies or legislation.

i was hired just like any other lawyer is fired and that is to represent the client and advocate their position in court . >> >> if you were confirmed, how would your experience with voter id laws influenced your decision-making process as a judge if the voter id case were to come before you? >> it wouldn't influence my decision-making at all. i would be bound by the decisions of the united states supreme court which in this case is the crawford versus marion county case and the 11th circuit court of appeals in resolving that issue. >> some have claimed that voter id laws generally, these would be like laws you defended, exist "for no other reason than to deny african-americans the right to vote." do you agree with that statement? >> i think the case law in this area has come down depending on the state it was brought in in different ways.

in georgia, the evidence that was presented in our case do not leave the court to conclude that it was against the right to vote. because of different factual circumstances, in other states they were presented in different statutes and different state constitutional provisions. the decision came out differently. i think in any case involving a challenge to a photo id law, it depends on the facts that are presented and the specific statute that is being reviewed. >> you already made reference to an affirmative action case. johnson versus board of regents, a class of students that were denied the challenge of university system awarding points to africans based on diversity. you defended that an 11th circuit found that the system was not narrowly tailored and hence unconstitutional. tell us about your case and who

you representing. >> i was representing the board of regents at the university of georgia. at that time, that was before the supreme court's decision so the university of georgia was implementing a points program very much like the university of michigan did in their undergraduate institution. both cases were appealed at the same time. the michigan case got to the u.s. supreme court. our case was settled before that time. >> if confirmed, this ruling will be binding precedent. what assurances can you give this committee that you will follow it and any other precedent? >> as a district judge, in article three judge, i am bound by the decisions of the united states supreme court. on the issue of affirmative action, that would be the fisher case and any other decision that

might be issued. >> ms. abrams. -- >> i am going to quote scalia -- "the risk of assessing standards is that it is all too easy to believe that evolution has come and they did in one's own views." do you believe that -- forget that he said that. think of the concept. >> i respect judge scalia, but i don't want him to be the focal point. do believe judges should consider overhauling standards when interpreting the constitution?

>> thank you, senator. i believe that a judge, particularly a district court judge, is bound by the court of law, down by precedent. in my case if i were to be fortunate to be confirmed, it would be the precedent of the supreme court and that would guide my decision. >> you think it is ever appropriate for federal judge to incorporate his or her own views when interpreting the constitution? >> no, senator. >> because there was a split in the rating of you, a majority of the standing committee on the judiciary rated u.s. qualified. a minority found the opposite. the attachments you provided in response to questions to your senate questionnaire provided very well of examples of legal writing. is there anything further you could share with the committee to easily doubt that may exist about whether your experiences after paired you for a lifetime appointment? >> thank you. i have practiced both in federal court civil law as well as criminal law. in that capacity, i have had a

strong motion to practice both written and oral. and appellate practice. almost four years of the u.s. attorney office, i have handled criminal cases from their inception including trial both jury trials and the equivalent of bench trials. i also handle my own habeas motions and have argued before the 11th circuit court of appeals. after graduating from yield law school, i served as a clerk to district judge and i believe that first-hand experience has made me help me understand what the day-to-day obligations of a district court judge. wallace understand there will in fact be a steep learning curve, i have spoken to all of the judges of the middle district of georgia who i will work with if i am so fortunate to be confirmed. i know they will support me in getting up to speed and i think my ability to study -- i have studied all the rules and my

hard work ethic will help me do my duty as a district court judge if i am confirmed. >> i am going to yield. i will assume you two will not -- >> thank you, senator grassley. just for the information of my colleagues, we are scheduled to have a vote at 11:10 a.m. i will turn the gavel over to senator franken when that happens and he and i will trade places and will continue the hearing. i am going to turn to senator durbin. before i do, judge boggs, you mentioned a case that was decided while you were a judge, perhaps on the georgia appellate court. i am not aware that case. can you provide the name in the opinion if there was one to the committee? >> i may have misspoken but when i was referring to was the political notification law has been the law in georgia since

1987, before i became a legislator. my actions in the general assembly between 2001 and 2004, to amend that bill in two specific ways was to amend current statute. the case you are referring to would be the one that was on my panel of the court of appeals. absolutely. >> he could provide the name in the opinion if there was one and any other details of that case. >> certainly. >> i'm going to submit questions in writing. >> we will have the record -- the record will stay open for all of us for a week after this hearing to submit questions in writing but that one in particular, if you could respond i would appreciate it. senator durbin. >> thank you. let me say to all nominees -- thank you for being here today and a special thanks should be given to your two senators who have worked very hard for this moment and have told each and every one of us about your

nominations. they think very highly of you. that commands all of you to our positive consideration. i do have a few questions. judge boggs, i would like to ask you because you appear to have served in the georgia general assembly in a very controversial moment when your state was debating its state flag. the question was whether or not the flag would be changed and no longer display the confederate battle symbol. you were embroiled in that debate. i ask you this question. do you believe that confederate flag issue had anything to do with the issue of race? >> when that flag was passed in 1956, there was no legislative history. i was in a flag historian nor am i now. looking back on that issue and preparing for today, i know that some argue that race,

particularly it was passed in reaction to the brown decision from the u.s. supreme court in 1956, i have no reason to dispute that. there are arguments on the other side as to what the motivation was for the bill originally. >> beyond the motivation for the original form of the flag, when you were serving in the general simply end the debate was underway and i believe overwhelmingly the african-american legislators opposed that symbol in the flag, did that lead you to believe that debate had anything to do with the issue of race? >> yes, sir. >> what was your feeling? >> i was offended by the flag. at the time that i made that a vote in 2001, i was a freshman legislator. i was in my 17th day of service. i was very respectful of the opinions of the majority of the african-american community in my state had towards that flag. it was not only a symbol of a

reminder of the civil war and the horrific tragedy in a horrible time in american history. a reminder of the institution of slavery. it was also more predominately than more contemporary uses of that flag by organizations that a spout over racism. i found that one of the most challenging things of being a legislator was deciding when to vote with my constituents and went to vote the will of myself. it was something i know other legislators struggled with. the overwhelming majority of the constituents in my one county that i represented which likewise contain a minority population that was not ignorant of, overwhelmingly, those constituents wanted georgians the opportunity to vote on whether to change the flag. that is why i cast the vote the way i did. i'm glad the flag was changed. it reflected something that i thought georgia could be better with.

>> since you understood that the debate in your time dealt with issues that at least brought up echoes of race problems and slavery, let me ask you this. when you compromise design was proposed in 2003 that remove the confederate x that echoed the confederate stars and bars flag, this design was supported by african-american democrats and you voted against it. why? >> yes, sir. for the same reasons. the overwhelming majority of my constituents wanted a choice between the 1956 flag and the current flag. intervening between the vote in my original vote was another opportunity to vote for a referendum on the flag and i voted for that. that would've afforded georgians an opportunity to vote. however, i reiterate, looking back on that vote at the time i

cast that vote, it was a very difficult decision to decide whether to vote my conscience which was reflective of the will of the constituents in my community or vote my own conscience. i couldn't be more respectful of the people that wanted that flag changed and i am glad it did change. >> judge boggs, each year for over 10 years, congressman from your state john lewis organizes a civil rights pilgrimage inviting members of both political parties to come down and personally witness some of the scenes of civil rights struggles of the 1960's. i was honored to be invited one year and as fate would have it walked over the bridge with congressman lewis in the early morning sunday hours. he pointed out the spot where he

was beaten unconscious and club down by troopers on that march. he said to me there are many people that are knowledged as heroes and i should not be one of them. there was one in particular who hardly ever gets credit and his name was frank johnson. frank johnson was a u.s. federal district court judge, and position that you five aspire to. the middle district of alabama. he not only ruled that the statute that allowed putting rosa parks on the back of the bus was wrong, he went on to rule that that march would be allowed. for that, his mother's home was firebombed. he was invited away from polite society but became an icon to many of us in terms of courage on the bench.

i understand the role of the legislator and politician trying to measure your constituents and what they want against what you believe is right. sometimes sadly they come in conflict. obviously, and judge johnson decided sitting on the federal court that even though he would be ostracized, he would do what he thought was right. i have asked you a lot of questions about when you were state representative and you said you reflected how your people felt. now, how do you view the issue of race when you have an opportunity to serve on the district court here? >> thank you for the question. first, let me say of the utmost respect for congress and lewis. i know him and i respect his career. while i know he might be critical of me during this

process, i don't take any affront to that. i deserve the criticism based on that vote. i have nothing but the utmost respect for congressman lewis and for all of those, including my colleague that sits behind me, who fought for three years of decades of racism and oppression and became the second african-american juvenile court judge in my state. my boat was never meant to be disrespectful. it was never intended to fail to acknowledge the struggle that succeeded in the quality. my vote was never intended to reflect that. i believe everyone that comes before me should be treated equally. i believe my record as a judge reflects my faithfulness to that. i don't think anyone can disprove if someone is accusing someone of being a racist. how do you disprove that? i think the best evidence i would have that the people that know me best don't believe that any is that after that vote, had

a challenge in the democratic primary in every african-american elected official in my city supported me. they grew up with me and i went to school with them or their children. they know me. they know that a vote was not indicative. in that election, i received 90% of the vote to be returned to the general assembly for second term. the same people overwhelm only the supported me with 80% of the vote when i ran for superior court judge. i think that is the best evidence. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator durbin. senator lee. >> thank you for all of you. ms. abrams, let's start with you. i see most of your practice has been in civil litigation, is that right? >> yes.

>> that is giving you a good flavor for both of them which will be important components of your caseload should you be confirmed. when you approach a civil case and -- as you know, a lot of civil cases are decided on motions and when they are not decided on those, it is still usually a motion that is made at some point or another. when you review a dispositive motion whether it is a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, do you think -- it is appropriate for a judge to defer on the side of granting or denying a dispositive motion? there are some judges that occasionally will say, at least privately, i would rather err on the side of giving the plaintiff his or her day in court, a trial. do you lean in either direction? is it just as bad to grant a dispositive motion where it is

not wanted as it is to deny one where it is? is either one worse than the other? >> i don't believe that one is either worse than the other or that it would be appropriate for me to hold a belief. i think that every case that comes before me if i am confirmed should get the same treatment and that is a fair and impartial application of the law to the facts of that particular case. >> ok. you wouldn't have any predilection any way or another? based on the issues brought before you? >> yes. >> i sometimes see a dangerous tendency in the courts in that sometimes we could end up with trial by attrition where it is

easier to deny a motion for summary judgment than it is to grant one in some ways. some ways it involves less risk. you don't have to write a lengthy opinion or deny one. it is not immediately appealable so it is easier to say i will deny this one and see what happens on appeal. would you tend to agree? >> i think that certainly does happen. i fortunately was trained by a judge who believed that we had to get it right. when i was a clerk, i did in fact deny a number of motions that ended cases but that was because the applicable law dictated that that was how a case should be handled. i hope that i learned enough from the judge and that i would in fact fairly and impartially apply the law to the fact of each case as a comes up warming. >> he is still on the bench

right? he is still available? >> he certainly is. >> judge ross, you are already a judge. do you agree with what ms. abrams has said or disagree? >> i agree with ms. abrams that i would have no predilection either way. also, i can say by having served as a state court judge, i have never ruled on a motion for summary judgment just at the point of being cautious. i have taken longer to rule on some of them than on other issues because like ms. abrams said, i wanted to get it right. i'm fortunate enough to say that none of the rulings i have rendered on motions of summary judgment have gotten reversed with the exception of one portion of one ruling based on attorneys fees and i'd agreed that i should have analyzed it slightly differently. >> do you have any particular judicial philosophy? how would you describe how you describe your philosophy?

>> my philosophy would be to apply the law fairly and equally to all people that would -- if i am confirmed as a district court judge -- that would appear before me. i think it is very important for judges to get it right. that means following the applicable supreme court and 11th circuit precedent to the letter and not allowing my own personal opinions to get in the way of fair, decisive and applying applicable law. i think it is important for judges to treat both the parties and the attorneys with respect and listen to all sides to an argument to make sure that as a judge i would understand the arguments of the parties. also, when issuing orders or ruling on specific issues, i believe it is very important for a judge to be clear and let the parties know exactly what the ruling is so they can imply that to the rest of the case.

>> thank you. judge boggs, you commented a few minutes ago about your inclination as a legislator to try to figure out what your constituents would prefer and that it sometimes but legislator in a difficult position. does any of that apply to you as a judge either as a state judge or would it apply to you as a federal judge if you were confirmed? >> no, it doesn't apply. that is a very comforting part about being a judge. i think i'm more suited to be a judge that i was a legislator. there was a lot of comfort in the rule of law. you can look good in the rope. i am confident not. the gauging of public sentiment on any issue as a legislator is always difficult. the political implications of votes are difficult. the considerations that partisan

politicians have to make a in and day out are difficult decisions. the decisions judges make are likewise difficult, but the fortunate part about the rule of law is that you don't stick your finger in the wind every time you decide a case to decide what is popular, what is public will, and what is the general direction of the public on this issue. i am very comforted in knowing if you are faithful to the rule of law, if you are faithful to applying precedent to every case, and you don't interject your personal opinions, while it is true you may make -- you might make unpopular decisions, popularity is not what the justice system will do. >> will not apply even if you're asked to make a ruling that is

going to be strongly against the public will? it is not just that it might not be the most popular ruling but a ruling that may seem unfair and harsh? perhaps a very sympathetic plaintiff or defendant? >> i think judges that are faithful to law will make unpopular decisions on a regular basis. the comforting part about being a judge is that the law should prevail in each and every case. sympathy for the party, empathy for the party has no role. sexual orientation of the party has no role in deciding how you can issue a decision. it is much more difficult when you are a partisan legislator to do with those issues because i think most of you all have the districts in your states and i did as a legislator where your entirety of your constituency rarely agree on everything. fortunately as a judge, do not concerned with those issues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator klobuchar? >> thank you to all the nominees. this is a very special day and i

see you have a lot of happy family members. i was going to ask some questions to mr. boggs. i know you were a judge for how long? >> 10 years now. >> obviously, there is a lot of understandable questions about the positions that you took as a candidate and in the legislature on choice and civil rights and marriage equality. did you rule in any those cases when you were a judge? cases involving those issues? >> as a trial court judge in georgia's highest level of trial court, didn't have jurisdiction to rule on constitutional questions. as a judge in the intermediate appellate court for the last two and half years, we of limited constitutional jurisdiction specifically we only deal with constitution is applied and

whether it was applied in an unconstitutional fashion. jurisdiction and confidential cases present with the supreme court. >> can you talk about your overall judicial philosophy? how your personal views have shaped that philosophy? >> i don't know if my personal views have shaved my philosophy. my experiential views has shaped my philosophy. i try to emulate characteristics that i see in other judges that i value. my general judicial philosophy is that judges should be faithful to the law. they should understand the limited role of the judiciary and they should not be policymakers. in addition, i think it is imperative that judges are continually treating every party that appears in front of them equally before the law. that build public confidence and a fair and impartial judiciary system which i think is very important. >> in your opinion, how strongly should judges themselves to the doctrine? >> i think the doctrine should bind all judges. inbound me as a trial court judge.

inbound me to the supreme court of georgia. i think as an appellate court judge, i am bound by the decisions of the supreme court of georgia. i would be bound and follow the decisions of the supreme court, even on those issues that you discussed. >> the supreme court rule of nearly 50 years ago is about privacy rights and access to contraception. do you view these cases as federal law? >> i do and i would follow that precedent. >> i am concerned about this amendment. i know there is a lot of background and have read it all but one of the things that really stuck out to me as someone who was a former prosecutor dealing with public safety issues was the amendment you supported in the georgia state legislature. i think senator blumenthal asked about this. i have some or questions. it would've required posting on the internet about the number of medical procedures that doctors

have performed having to do with terminating a pregnancy. there can clearly be public safety implications for these doctors if you put all this detailed information about them online. i think you can see in other areas as well and i think we have certainly seen lives being taken from these doctors that terminate pregnancies. we don't put this kind of information online for other procedures and other medical areas. my first question is if your views on this issue are still the same? >> i would be hesitant to give you my views on that issue. as much as that may come before me as a judge, but i will tell you that was a floor amendment. i didn't have any idea it it was coming. i didn't have any thing to do with the altering of that amendment. in retrospect, it particularly in light of what i have learned subsequently concerning the public safety issue, i should not have voted for that amendment.

>> you consider that at the time you voted on it a public safety risk? >> i was not aware as i am now of the public safety risk. again, the back of throat of bringing up a bill, i should have. in hindsight, it was regretful i did not. >> last year, the supreme court issued an important ruling on marriage equality in the windsor case. how would your personal views on marriage equality impact of decisions as a judge? >> they would not. i would follow windsor and any other cases out of the supreme court. >> would you commit to following supreme court precedent in this area when it comes to marriage equality? >> absolutely. >> i know that there have also been some attention around comments you made while running to be a state court judge. what role do you think about your personal opinions on women's reproductive rights

would be? >> it has no role on how i would decide legal issues or decide cases or analyze issues where i could be confirmed as a district court judge. >> one of the things that has been brought to my attention -- i think would concerning a lot of people, but not as much as the amendment on the doctors posting. there was a bill that took some pictures of license plates and you took pictures with a license plate, i think. what do you think about that and how would that influence any decision that you would make going forward? >> the choose life adoptions program was a bill i cosponsored with the majority of the members of the house of the general assembly in georgia because it was important to the constituents.

it would have no impact, my personal beliefs on reproductive rights as well is my personal beliefs on issues. it would have no impact but i think my record demonstrates that i am faithful to never interject my personal opinion into decisions i make. >> were there any questions about you injecting your personal opinion into decisions that you made? i am sure yet that cases appealed as a state court judge or the basis of any of the appeals that you somehow injected your personal views on any subject? >> not one time. >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> pay to keep this going but judge boggs, in 2013, you receive the grassroots justice award given by the georgia

justice project on behalf of the criminal justice reform counsel. according to the georgia justice, it was created in 2008 as a way to lift up the work of people and organizations whose efforts give voice for lent aid to the poorest in the community. it complements the work that they do that the georgia justice project. can you tell us about the role you played in the criminal justice reform counsel and the work you did to receive that award? >> thank you, senator. that award was received by me. it was not award specific to meet but an acknowledgment of the whole. i've had the pleasure to work to improve the judicial system for the very people that are most frequently involved in it, particularly the criminal justice arena.

as a judge, i presided over our circuits first felony program. i believe it was appropriate to try to assist people whose mental health issues or substance abuse issues were driving their conduct. i am proud to say that program still exists. it has now expanded into a mental health court program which i always aspired to do. in 2011, the chief justice of the georgia supreme court appointed me as part of the reform counsel and we addressed criminal justice reform by doing a lot of the things that this body is considering both in the smart sentencing act and chairman leahy's safety valve acts of 2013. we have looked at mandatory minimums and provided a couple of safety valves. we have looked at programs that would assist people with substance abuse issues that are

involved in felony criminal conduct so we can assist them in the community. we found those programs that are evidence-based programs were very successful in reducing recidivism. they're better at saving taxpayer money. they put people back with their families. they restore people to a productive life. later, the governor of the state of georgia appointed me for the last two years to cochair the criminal justice reform. in 2013, we addressed juvenile justice reform. developed a fiscal program to incentivize local communities to treat juveniles and their communities as opposed to very costly and unproductive out of home placements. last year, i cochair the council again and we addressed the concept of reentry. what do we do with the approximately 18,000 inmates

that are being released a year? how can we better cook them to be successful? how can we ensure public safety at a better rate? our recidivism rates were roughly 30%. that is unacceptable, particularly with respect to the cost of the taxpayers. with the charge we were given, i was very fortunate in being part of developing a program in the state that will help these inmates while they are in prison. help these inmates with substance abuse programs while in the system. provide a seamless transition from prison to the community and then provide some resources to the community to ensure the citizens are productive, lawful, compliant with the law, but also productive citizens that can get their lives back. i have been proud to be a part of that. >> thank you. that is all. >> senator feinstein? >> thank you. i would like to ask a couple of questions if i can. again, i regret i was not here.

judge boggs, to hear your answer to the question on essentially the bill that had online profiles to the number of abortions performed by a doctor. i think you said it was a mistake and what did you mean by that? >> i don't think it we appropriate to post it online. it will be a huge public safety risk for the physicians that are performing abortions. >> you are saying the bill was wrong? >> the amendment that was proposed -- it was not mine. the amendment was ill-conceived, i believe. >> i trust you are aware of the kinds of violence that takes place around this issue. and, there is a question i think among many of my colleagues whether an activist-conservative judge or an activist and

conservative can become a judge that is not an activist judge. i happen to believe that is possible. in a couple of cases, i voted for 11th circuit and fifth circuit judge which i think have done very judge when they said they would not continue to be activists. i think when you come to a federal court, is really very important that the questions of constitutionality on an issue are acted by someone who, as judge abrams has said, will follow precedent. i've said on this committee for 22 years. we have been acutely disappointed by the fact that people pledge themselves to be decisive and they leave here and they take the oath of a judge

and you just watch and you say where has it all gone? i don't want to cast a vote for someone where that happens. and so, i want to ask you a couple of questions. the issue of choice is extraordinarily important to me. i represent a state which is dominantly pro-choice. what would be your position on issues revolving around a woman's right to choose? this is purposefully an open question. >> thank you. my position on matters that might appear before me regarding a woman's right to choose would be faithfulness to the rule of law, faithfulness to the doctrine. while there have been some bad

experiences by members of this committee, i think the best example i can give you is not what i say that i will do, but evidence of what i've done. i spoke to a judge in my state disposing of roughly 14,000 cases. i think my record is the best evidence that i can separate any political or partisan or public policy position i may have from my ability to be an impartial decision-maker. if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed, i will follow the precedent of the u.s. supreme court on women's reproductive rights issues. >> you see, i listened to a couple of supreme court justices say just that. we don't have -- there were long discussions on this. bingo. it all changed. it makes us feel very foolish to believe what we hear. so, i mean, for me, i have to make a judgment whether you mean what you say or whether it will

be just like the supreme court justices who pledge to us diligent pursuance of decisive. it just didn't happen. let me ask you another issue and senator klobuchar began it in a web like to do it in a slightly different way. that is u.s. v. windsor. i am aware a lawsuit is pending so i want to be very careful. i am the main author on repealing the defense of marriage act. i was one of 14 that voted against it in the 1990's and we have 42 cosponsors. we are getting close. as you know, 17 states and the district of columbia have essentially approved the right of marriage to same-sex partners. what doma did was family law, divorce, etc. is generally to preserve a state law.

in that case, they made it to preserve a federal law. in so doing, removed some 1100 federal rights from couples that are duly married in their state. so, this involves a state tax right, a social security right, and on and on. the question i have would be if your state were to approve same-sex marriage or the supreme court on the windsor case, i guess would repeal doma, how would you feel and how would you act as a judge? >> my personal feelings would be irrelevant to how i act as a judge. you have my commitment i would follow the decision of windsor. i would follow any precedent on marriage equality issues as i would any issues. i personal opinions expressed over 10 years ago on that issue may or may not have changed to whatever might personal beliefs

are on that, they have never been relevant to how i have decided cases. with respect to your earlier question, my fundamental philosophy as a judge is to have an obligation to follow the law. you don't have to believe me necessarily when i sit here today under oath. i hope you would. i hope you would also look to what i have done over the last 10 years that demonstrates a faithfulness to follow precedent in over 14,000 cases and opinions i have authored that all have been made available to the committee. i think it is a fundamental obligation of judges to follow. i recognize that maybe that is not always follow through with by some nominees. >> well, at least my vote

depends on whether i believe that or not and for a long i can continue to believe that. i think this is a very hard one. the third issue is race. i think you were eloquent on the subject of the confederate flag and what it means. it really means much more than just the material of that flag. it is a whole history, and whole set of beliefs which are rather countered to america of today. my hope is, and i don't know, i hope to have a chance to talk with you more after this, but what i want you to know is for my vote, i have to have certainty.

i don't know quite how to get it in view of his record. i just want to put that on the table publicly. >> i respect that position. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator feinstein. let me close by going back to a line of questioning that i began. i know some of my colleagues have pursued it. the amendment dealing with publicizing doctors performances of abortion. i know that you said that it wasn't your amendment. you may have been, maybe i should just ask you -- were you unaware about the violence that was linked to performing

abortions at that time? dr. barnett was killed in 1998. the faith statute in new york was passed in 1994. your amendment was voted on in 2001. it was clearly a very powerful history of violence linked to doctors providing these services. i find, frankly, incredible the idea that you would not understand that this amendment would put doctors at risk. >> thank you for the question. indeed, it was not my amendment, however i did supported on the floor. i stated earlier in this hearing

that i believe the amendment was ill-conceived. i regret that i voted for it. i recognized the public safety risk now much more so than i did at that time. ultimately, i think as a legislator casting thousands of votes or amendments and bills, making decisions and committee -- in committee, it is not entirely unexpected there may be some votes that i cast that looking back on them as a legislator try my best to represent the people i represented it in a very staunchly pro-life district, i might've made some mistakes. i was in the perfect legislator. i'm not a perfect judge, but looking back on it, i regret that vote in a recognize the fully safety risk. >> i appreciate -- i think it is more than just another vote.

this one was significant. we all cast votes here and we are responsible for every one of them. some of more significant and this one strikes me as profoundly significant because it involves not just a matter of constitutional right, not just the will of law, but physical safety per doctors who were providing constitutionally guaranteed rights to women vulnerable to the same kind of violence. i appreciate the comments on it. and, i think it is something we will have to take into account. senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do have some questions for judge boggs. i know that mainly -- the rest of you should feel good about that. that is what i am saying. you should feel very happy about that. judge boggs, i had the

opportunity to meet you a couple of weeks ago. i enjoyed that meeting. i believe that judges can decide things by, you know, in the proper way even if they have had a record before of votes when they are in the legislature that are contrary to constitutional -- what has been decided constitutionally. i don't want a situation where we cannot ever have people confirmed because they had some public record on something. i think that is a bad tendency. that is a bad tendency to do

that. so, i think that -- because a judge's role is to make decisions based on what the law is. not take their personal opinions, although, personal opinions or experience do shape how a judge invariably has to. experience is the law in many ways for judges. i think it is important we have to factor that in but we cannot establish a system here where just looking at things in the past, either it is voting in the legislature or just opinions expressed by a professor who is writing scholarship, i think that is a dangerous thing we're doing. i do think that it is good we get to question you and it is good we get to meet you beforehand in private. when i talk to you about the confederate flag or the confederate war symbol or battle emblem on the flag, you told me that you voted against changing

the flag because your constituents wanted the right to vote on it -- on a referendum. was in that right? >> yes. >> it turned out you voted twice on this in the first time in 2001, there was no referendum. so, i felt kind of -- a little odd. that one there was no referendum and -- give me a chance -- i'd like to give you a chance to explain that because what i got out of our meeting was that you had was that your constituents overwhelmingly wanted a referendum on this. yet, there was no referendum attached to it the first time.

can you explain both votes? >> indeed, there was no nonbinding referendum presented in that legislation. my constituents overwhelmingly believed that a vote against that bill might subsequently result in a referendum that would offer them an opportunity to choose the old flag and the new flag. i have expressed earlier my position on that. i don't know how to explain it any further. i will tell you that it was an agonizing opportunity 17 days into my legislative career to make this balance between -- address this challenge between voting the will of my constituents and will in what i believe was the correct thing to

do. subsequently, there was an opportunity to choose to present to the public in georgia nonbinding referendum that including the post-1956 flag and the flag we change to, i voted for that. it provided my constituents with what i thought they wanted. however, that didn't pass and there was another referendum to the one you refer to. voted the same way i did the same time -- the first time. >> did you present a resolution to provide a referendum? >> no. i didn't author any of his bills. >> you understand from my point of view where when asked about this, you said it was because your constituents overwhelmingly wanted a referendum. but, there was no referendum on that vote and you didn't introduce anything about a

referendum. did you say anything? was there anything in the public record about you saying there should be a referendum? >> i never spoke been about my position on the flag. >> ok. but you talk to me about it and what you said to me was the way you voted was because your constituents overwhelmingly wanted to vote on it. it doesn't seem like that vote had anything to do with a referendum. >> i understand the question. i don't see the inconsistency that your question presumes. my constituents wanted to vote. we were not presented with an opportunity and that therefore represents an inconsistency. my position was my constituents'position was was to vote against any flag change that didn't present them with an opportunity to vote. 17 days into my career would not have been the time for me to introduce a binding -- a nonbinding resolution on that matter.

>> what you told me was that you voted because you wanted to have a chance to vote. nevertheless, there is no record of you saying that. actually, there was a record of you telling in local newspaper that you voted to keep the flag -- this is in 2001 -- you voted to keep it because you constituents overwhelmingly supported the flag. >> i did say that. i think that is consistent with what i have said today. and when we met. >> it seems like that when you -- when we met. you said that -- you didn't say it was because your constituents overwhelmingly supported the flag, it was because her constituents overwhelmingly wanted to vote on it. i think those are two different

things. it gave me -- it led me to the understanding whether you intended it or not, was that your only vote was a vote on whether to put that flag up for a vote. that is what you wanted. that you voted against changing the confederate flag on the georgia state flag. it is like a big part of the flag, like half the flag or something. that was passed in 1956. that was because of brown. so, it really was about -- this wasn't something that was part of the georgia state flag after reconstruction. it happened in 1956, 2 years after brown. to me, this is a very important thing. as i said, i don't think that we should be judging or we should be confirming people based on

public stuff they have said before unless it is so an pedicle to being a judge. i know you've been a judge for 10 years now. i hear wonderful things about you. the thing that upsets me or that gave me some pause is that we have this meeting. in the meeting, i felt that you gave me a little slightly misrepresentation of your record on this by saying that the reason you voted against the changing the confederate flag being on the state flag was that your constituents wanted a referendum on it. but, there was a referendum tied to it. you didn't raise anything about a referendum. you didn't say anything public

about it. in fact, you told a local newspaper that the reason you voted against it was because your constituents overwhelmingly wanted to keep that flag. those are two different explanations to me. while i am very, you know, i am very disturbed of this tendency of us to vote against people because something in their past because they were brave enough or acted out of conviction beforehand. i do judge by my meeting with people how forthright they are. on this last thing, on this thing that the chairman brought up about the voting to put online the number of procedures, the abortion procedures that doctors have performed. there was that time, these

nürnberg feil that they talked about. they put on the names of doctors. there have been doctors murdered for this. and yet you say that your state legislator -- you were a state legislator, but you're not aware of that? >> it was not my amendment. the bill proposed to be amended was the patient right to know act, predominantly related to medical malpractice lawsuits. i don't recall, senator, if it listed other procedures. i have indicated here today and i would've indicated previously

that my position on that -- >> you were a state legislator at the time but not aware of any of the public safety issues involved around this issue? >> i wasn't and i think that is attributable to the fact that this came as a floor amendment and not something i had an opportunity to study or even speak to other legislators about. >> it is simply off your radar. with all this news around the threats to doctors and bombings of clinics, those kinds of things. how old were you at the time? >> 37. >> a state legislator. and were not aware of any of that. >> no, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> i think all of the panel members for being here. you explained your vote regarding the georgia flag. you explained your position regarding the online posting of abortion instances as basically, if i understand you, you selecting your constituents views and not your own conscience. is that accurate? >> with respect to the flag, yes. with respect to my position on reproductive rights issues, i was respecting also the will of my constituents. >> for those of us that have served in state legislatures, we know the challenges and when to express your constituents views and when to vote your conscience. as you think back, can you give

an example of when you went against the will of your constituents? >> i can think of several instances, senator. i supported reapportionment maps drawn by democrats in the general assembly drawn by my term in the legislature. they were not supported by the majority of people in my district. >> considering that so many of the questions we have been asking have to do with the area of reproductive rights and civil rights, have you, at any point, voted your conscience on matters that are related to the gist of the questions we have been asking? >> i can't think of any specific

instance. without given the opportunity to review my voting record. >> that's fair. bills and amendments, i wanted to ask you, you said your personal view would not be appropriate for you to let us know. do you agree with the supreme court's decision that granted a constitutional right to a woman to have an abortion? >> absolutely. i would be bound by those if i were confirmed and i pledge to you that i would faithfully follow that precedent. >> until the u.s. supreme court changes its decision, you will apply it in the way that it should be applied? >> without question, senator. >> you are also a vocal proponent for georgia's constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. you've also raised questions about judicial activism. the way you put it is that you have concerns about judges issuing decisions that venture

into policymaking. i take it that's what you mean by judicial activism. that should be left to the legislature. >> yes. >> back to the constitutional amendment, you know that the constitutional amendment is being challenged. >> yes. >> if the amendment is struck down by the federal court, would you consider that court to be engaging in judicial activism? >> i would not. to go back to my comments made in 2004, as a state legislator, candidly, i did believe that at that time. my comments about judicial activism were that judges would have been engaging in that.

looking back on that now, particularly with 10 years being a judge, 10 years being faithful to the obligation. 10 years of looking back on a career as a legislator, noting the notable differences between both roles, that is what i was referring to in 2004 but i do not believe that now. that that judge might decide that that constitutional amendment would be engaging in judicial activism. >> would you consider judicial activism in the context of if it were a lower court that word doing things that don't comport with what you've you as what the u.s. supreme court held? for example, when our supreme court decided lilly ledbetter or decided citizens united, would you consider those decisions judicial activism? it did take a lot of people by surprise. >> i would not and the

difference is my view of judicial activism as a legislator and as a judge. i have grown in my job as a judge to respect the role of judges to decide those cases based on the facts presented before them. when i was a legislator, i was not a judge. i was not making decisions in that capacity. it was determining what i was at the time that i made those comments. but certainly, you are correct. the comments i made in 2004 were reflective of the sentiment you expressed. >> as a judge, you will be confronted with cases before you. the decisions that you make could be described i state legislators like you were as judicial activism. and you can see that possibility as a federal judge?

>> judges at all levels of court in my state are routinely criticized for making unpopular decisions. maybe making legislation that legislators don't believe are appropriate. i have been a judge ride for that happened and i've been there when it happened. a judge the show's faithfulness to the rule of law will apply precedent faithfully and while it is true those issues, the equal rights issues have not come before me on a regular basis as an appellate judge, the jurisdiction i have on the court of appeals is broad. and in each instance, i have been faithful to follow the rule of law. >> you could engage in what some legislators may consider to be judicial activism based on the facts of the case and was presented to you. >> i can't presume what a state legislator might think about any decision. one like me may very well criticize me. but what i would say to that is that i have shown dedication to

the code of judicial conduct and never decided cases based on fear of clamor or fear of criticism. >> just for clarification, as a state court judge, have you had a cases dealing with marriage equality, equal protection for gays and lesbians, and i think you noted that you had a case involving a minor seeking an abortion. as to marriage equality cases, equal protection of gays and lesbians, have you had any cases in those areas? >> i have had one, senator, that is an adoption case and the record is sealed and i would not want to do anything to jeopardize the rights of the mother. but i will tell you that i did have a case is a trial court judge several years ago wherein a woman who identified herself as lesbian and identified her partner before me requested that

i approved for adoption of a child from foster care. georgia law is particular in respect to juvenile court matters and adoptions. it is sacred that we maintain the fidelity of our laws in that those records are sealed. i don't know what she may have told family or others in her community concerning her sexual orientation. it's irrelevant to me. but i know i was presented by that case with a lawyer that told me he had presented that case to our circuit's chief judge and he refused to hear that case. so he came to me, the junior judge in the circuit. i listened to her evidence, her fitness to be an adoptive parent. i listened faithfully and impartially to the evidence presented and i approved the adoption. and as i've said routinely, i am

faithful to follow the law. that was the appropriate decision, not because of her sexual orientation but because the facts warranted it. she had shown an ability to take care of the child to the foster care program. any time they conducted a home of valuation, her home was clean and she was capable of taking care of the child. i handled that case as i would for any other petitioner concerning adoptions. >> my time is up. thank you. >> i would like to thank all the nominees that appeared before us this morning. g. thank you for the opportunity

to join what i understand has been a vigorous exchange and i like to thank senator blumenthal for chairing today. i would like to ask each of you if you would offer the comments you wish on what role you think you would have as a member of the federal judiciary in ensuring equal access to justice and ensuring a fair and balanced treatment of all litigants that appear before you and what gives us some confidence that you will make that a priority. >> as i stated, i believe that my role as a judge, if i am confirmed, will be to fairly and impartially apply the applicable law to the individual facts of each case. and it would necessitate a be fair and impartial with each person that comes before me. i believe that throughout this process, people have talked to lawyers that appeared opposite me and i think my interaction with them, to be fair in all cases to see the full picture not disregarding my duty as a prosecutor, but to be fair and considerate of what was going

on. lawyers who have worked with me say that i attempt to be fair and balanced and would carry that into being a district court judge if i am confirmed. >> equal access is kind of a broad topic. i view equal access to the court as being a model of efficiency. that the judge has an obligation to move cases through the system so that they don't languish and litigants have the opportunity to bring closure to their cases. the efficiency of the judicial system is bent on that. and i think it is necessary. you have corporate litigants that have no closure to cases. equal access means a lot of

things, that the judge should remain active in the case, move cases forward, sets reasonable deadlines. and also move the court into a system that is more efficient. and it may mean -- i developed a drug court program to move some of the felony cases off of the original docket. it may mean i supported pretrial programs and mandatory civil trials where juries have been requested. all models built on allowing equal access by improving how quickly people can get to court. with respect to ensuring everyone is treated fairly, the best evidence i could give you of that is my record is trial court judge and appellate court judge where i have an unblemished record of having ensured that everybody that appears before me is treated equally with an unbiased and impartial application of the law. that is what has prepared me, i think, to model that.

>> if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed, the oath that i would take provides that i would administer justice without respect a person and do equal rights. i would take that very seriously. i think it is a cardinal fact that any federal judge has to consider when he or she is presiding over a case. it is important, just looking at my record, a lot of attorneys in private practice have done pro bono work and i have certainly done some with respect to working with the atlanta bar association's eviction defense program, representing people that are being unjustly thrown out of their apartments. and i served on the board of the wilderness group that provided for alternative sentencing for juveniles that should not have gone into a juvenile detention facility, but deserved to do go

to a program where they can get education and work to keep themselves out of the adult prison system down the road. we have the federal defender program. whenever a defendant came before may, we would ensure the defendant had the opportunity for counsel to represent that person. >> throughout my time in private practice, i have mainly been handling negotiations. interns of my work experience, i find that people are not for mayor with the court system and we have to take them through what is going to happen and educate them about the civil system. along with my colleagues, i

believe the most important part of equal access is to treat everyone fairly before the law, the matter what their circumstances are. there are concrete activities that judges can do to make them more likely. courts on their website can provide links to different resources that people can utilize. judges can provide more details for those representatives and they can learn more what is expected of them in the courtroom. ultimately, a judge has a responsibility to encourage pro bono work and be out in the community and speaking on issues of equal access to the court. and i have been very active in my own career with pro bono activities. >> thank you so much. it's no problem at all. i have concerned myself very much with equal access. we do have a lot of litigants in

state court. it is important to ensure that they know the resources available to them including the services of the public defender and legal aid as well as the law library. and in terms of fairness, i am very fair and respectful to the litigants who appear before me, whether they are the most well-versed and well-known attorneys or first-time litigants. if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed, i would definitely continue it. >> if i might, i have a few questions that i wanted to get to. you cast a vote as a member of the georgia legislature to approve posting profiles of up abortion doctors online and there has been some exchange about that. what motivated your vote for that measure? and how can i understand that measure as being anything other than an attempt to burden a woman's right to choose.

>> i was motivated by a very strong desire to represent the will of my 38,000 constituents that were predominantly pro-life. those issues were important to my constituents. that amendment, an amendment i did not have very much time to consider and from which i have expressed regret for having not been more considerate of that vote, at the end of the day, the motivating factor on pro-life issues in general was motivated by my desire to represent my constituents. >> in 2012, you completed an application and you stated, the "judiciary continues to endure criticism by issuing decisions that venture into policymaking." this is the question of activism by the judiciary. if you could, help me

understand. or lawrence versus texas, were they being inappropriately activist? >> no, sir. >> have they earned criticism for the aggregating their constiutional authority? >> comments on the floor is a legislature, judges that were declaring same-sex marriages constitutional. that is what i thought, as a legislator, the cases i was referring to. those states where they had to clear that law constitutional. looking back on that, 13 years later and with the benefit of having been a judge for 10 years, the concept of activist judge that i had as a legislator is no longer prevalent in my

mindset. >> you said earlier today it would be inappropriate under the canon of judicial ethics or perhaps the federal canon to convey to this committee where you stand on particular issues, but those same cannons would have applied to you as a judicial candidate in 2004 when you made a public announcement about where you stood on issues like same-sex marriage. was that a violation of the canon of judicial ethics? >> i will tell you looking back on those comments made while i was still in legislator but also seeking the job of judge and candidly probably after i qualified for the position, i regret that i wasn't more articulate and artful crafting an explanation to my constituents that reflected my understanding of the role of the judge.

>> the georgia canon says that a candidate shall not make a contribution to a political organization. a political organization is defined as a political party or group, to further the election of a candidate to office. would you considered georgia conservatives and action to be a political organization under that definition? >> i would have to look at it. i am familiar with the organization but not enough with regard to tax status status. >> your campaign committee made a contribution to it in september of 2012 and my understanding is the georgia conservatives and action endorses political candidates. that is an issue that is of some concern to me that i think crosses a line that is fairly clear. they also say a candidate shall not publicly endorse a candidate. when did you announce your candidacy for superior court

judge? >> i don't recall. it would've been sometime in 2004. >> were you a member of the bush-cheney democrats for bush national steering committee? >> to my knowledge i had never been a member of that committee. it was only through this process that i've discovered that i had been listed. and i believe that listing without my permission or knowledge was by virtue of me having attended a meeting prior to his fundraiser in georgia. i did not make any political contribution. i realize that everyone that attended that with the exception of one member was listed. it was done without my authority and i had no knowledge of it. at the time, i made a contribution from my judicial campaign.

i had no knowledge of their sponsorship or endorsement of any candidate for elective office. >> i appreciate your answers and i may have others. i appreciate your forbearance at the time i've taken. i think there is a record that well bears consideration and i appreciate your testimony today. >> the questions you have been asked lead me to one last set of questions and i promise they will be brief. on the topic of judicial activism and the right to privacy, you may recall in february of 2004, in your capacity as a state legislator, you spoke on the floor of the georgia house of representatives in favor of a resolution calling for a proposed constitutional amendment that would've banned same-sex marriage. and in support of that

resolution, you said to your colleagues that they should recognize the "dangers posed by activist judges operating in current state law." and you cited, as an example of that activism, a decision by the supreme court of the state of georgia in the 1998 case of powell versus state. they struck down the georgia sodomy statute that made it illegal for people to engage in consensual sex in the privacy of their own homes. do you think the georgia supreme court wrongly decided?

>> i don't now. my views have changed and my roles have changed. as a legislator talking about activist judges, it was different than what i believe now. >> and you would not now support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage? >> no, sir. my position, whatever it might've been then and whatever it is now, has no import whatsoever on how i decide cases. >> and the judge carly dissent, you cited his dissent as

evidence of the potential dangers -- i wonder if you would agree now with justice carly who wrote in that dissent a "constitutional right to privacy obviously cannot include the right to engage in private conduct which was condemned as criminal at the very time the constitution was ratified." the constitutional right to privacy obviously cannot conclude the right to private conduct that was condemned as criminal at the very time the constitution was ratified. you cited that dissent with approval and support of the view that in effect, powell was

wrongly decided. i would just point out that georgia had many statutes, including criminalizing sexual relationships and marriages between people of different races at the time was passed and justice carly's dissent indicated the right to privacy would cover non of those kinds of private consensual acts. >> i think to the extent that you ask me to agree or disagree, i haven't read the dissent in 10 years. the personal views are irrelevant but to the extent his opinion has conflicted with decisions with the supreme court, i would follow the decisions of the supreme court and well i have respect for him, a very good friend of mine formally on the georgia supreme court, my role as a judge would be to apply precedent. >> i want to close by thanking all of you as potential and likely district court judges because you are really going to

serve as the protectors and guardians of our nation's legal conscience. i reminded of that fact thinking of judge frank johnson whose memory was invoked by senator durbin. you know judge johnson's history. he was more than an icon. he was a hero. he is the reason that many of us chose this career and chose to be trial lawyers or prosecutors. because of his conscience and conviction and courage standing up to ostracism, physical threat, and violence. i hope that you will take this responsibility -- i know you

will take it seriously because you are truly going to be the voice and face of justice for people coming to your courtrooms. i want to thank you for the long hours you will spend, willing to serve here today. their leadership making nominations possible and the president of the united states for his faith in your ability to serve. with that, i will adjourn this hearing and the record will be kept open for one week. thank you all for attending. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] a look not to see what to

expect from both chambers when they dabble in. the house returns monday after being away for a week long rake. defensehe key items is authorization legislation. can we dig into how immigration could factor into the debate on defense? >> it is one of the biggest, most rolling measures to hit either chamber. up a plethora of issues from military suicide to russian rocket motors that they depend on. immigration on the enough is going to fax her into it. there is an effort in the house by the ranking democrat to include language in this note that would do permanent legal status. up over defense policy.

it is up to the house rules committee to decide whether to declare this amendment in order. big fighthave a nice over immigration. it into theoes make republican-controlled house, it is likely to defeat it. that is not mean it will not pop up. it is an interesting intersection of national security and the immigration debate. >> members are gathered to debate the third appropriation bill. can you tell us about that bill and whether the gun issue might come up? providess a bill that a little bit over $51 billion in discretionary funding. john carter included some that would this bill

bar a program that would require gun dealers along the southern border to report to them when they sell shotguns and rifles. more than a few of them to a single urges her. it appears designed to stamp out an effort the white house says will reduce violence along the southern border in my way out -- weed out purchases. critics say it is an attempt at the gun registration. this will become part of this that covers multiple agencies. we will see if the trigger some did they appropriation. sit on two set to items. the kidnapping of the nigerian girls and grecian -- and recent issues your case elsewhere about that? on thursday it took up

whether the nigerian military is in a position to respond to the officials. this is a very human right problem. you are hearing now lawmakers on both sides increasingly calling for perhaps military involvement, john, special ops forces. was the way the debate ended on a tax extenders bill. what are both parties looking to

do to move it closer to final passage? >> over the weekend we heard there was some informal discussions about an amendment deal. this deals with tax extenders, some 55 temporary deductions and provisions that expired at the end of 2015. is another short-term extension. they're putting a very tight control on the amendment process. that there will be a very realistic effort to scratch out the medical device tax. a fair number of democrats favored this. he is not allowing republicans in. they need this to make this work and advance the bill. they are holding out. rankingatching the

republican orrin hatch to see if they can work out an amendment will they can entertain the possibility of republican amendments before a vote and whether this thing falls victim to more for seizure of biting. cqrheir website is ollcall.com. thank you for your time. >> nice to be with you. at the closer look schedule for the house and senate. the house in tomorrow at noon eastern. considermembers will suspension bills to a number of recipients. both after 6:30 p.m.. later they are expected to consider funding for water infrastructure. they have a brief session. at five bpm, they are scheduled to vote on the confirmation of

costa to be district judge as well as a motion to move forward from the nomination of stanley fischer to be a member of the board of governors for the federal reserve system. that coverage. >> the communication policy had not been with warmth since 1934. a compellinglly need to begin a process of massive telecommunication reform. at that time, you basically had boxes. you had a box for broadcasters, telephone companies, long distance. cable, satellite. and eliminate in the lines of demarcation and promote competition. believing there would be more investment and more consumer choice.

fortunately, the result has proven is correct. that is exactly what is happening. when the 96 act was written, we are largely focused on service whether it was local or long-distance. some extent we focused on cable tv service. this is what we call plain old telephone service. today the landscape is fundamentally different. the fcc has managed as well as the can without clear direction the congress about how transition from the air at telephone surface to the time when everything is delivered over the internet should take ways. in many -- i might, i have done a good job. >> evaluating the telecommunications act with two of the house members who helped write it, monday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.

>> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington jointly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, and read things in hearings. service ofblic private industry. we are created by the cable television industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service. watch as in hud, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. at the situation in syria including recent allegations of the syrian government using chemical weapons against his own evil. cities. also you can check it out anytime at c-span.org/localcontent. joining us from houston, texas, from the campus of rice university is edward djerejian, a were toker u.s. embassy to former u.s. bar

ambassador to syria. forbass back, thank you being with -- mr. ambassador, thank you for being with us. you.: good to be with host: one of the big questions as we hear from secretary state kerry a new u.s. response to allegations. first of all, what do you know? guest: well, i'm not privy to the intelligence but obviously both the american secretary of state and now the french foreign statedr have publicly that there is evidence that the chlorine gas in in recent weeks. obviously it's a chemical agent. it's not one of the chemical in, i --at are listed i believe that are listed in the of the syrianal military, that the agreement was dismantle and

destroy. but, still, it is use of a agent.l host: in fact, 14 different chemical weapons according to u.s. intelligence. and here is what secretary of state kerry said just last week .n paris the c.w. andct to , it the consequences are has been made clear by president use wouldothers that result in consequences. we're not going to pin ourselves precise time, date, manner of action. but there will be consequences were to be proven, including, i might say, things that are way beyond our control, nothing to do with us but the international criminal court are free to hold him accountable. as you know, we have a resolution that will be in front the united nations with respect to cull pact for crimes humanity, atrocities

and, of course, of this conflict. or the other there will be accountability. host: ambassador, as you hear that comment, it's almost reminiscent of the so-called red line that we heard from the president. will there be consequences? are they?t guest: that's a good question, steve. when the most extensive use of deployed bypons was the regime and over 1,000, i believe 400, people were killed, activate.ne was not you know we went to that very complex scenario where by with intervention an agreement was made with the his chemicalmantle arsenal. now, the good news in all of this is that reportedly over 93-odd percent of his chemical arsenal has been

identified and taken out of the country. there's still work, obviously, to be done. these wordsear again, again one has to be very precise. use of these reportedly weapons a cause for not?n to be taken or that's not very clear in the statements i've heard. host: our guest served as us us ambassador to syria from 1988 to 1991. he is currently the public baker director of the institute on the campus of rice university. in some news this morning from irish times -- i just want to read to you what it's writing today. base, the president can contemplate a broad sweep of syria clawing back from the who once threatened to drive him out. the cam tall which they targeted is now plastered with posters inviting syrians to re-elect him as president. powerful foreign allies have president assad hold or

retake a chain of cities which formed the north-south backbone country and the cul culmination will lead to the election that many dismiss as a saying that, yes, he will be re-elect the as president but .his is no campaign the sheer decision that he's made to have elections, to rerun for the presidenty -- pressie for -- for another seven-year term, this has been his goal from the very beginning. years.back three he is always focused on presidential elections where he re-elected and extend his regime. the fact that these elections held in a country that is devastated by civil and warfare, where the government itself does not control all of its sovereign belies the whole

credibility of these elections. so he's making a political point he's here. he needs to be dealt with, that leavingo intention of power. he will do everything to destabilize the opposition groups. host: did we do enough to try to help those trying to topple president assad? baker well, here at the institute approximately a year and a half two years ago we does a report onwe did what the u.s. administration doing inntemplate order to support the opposition the way for political transitional talks between the opposition and the regime of assad to lead to constitutional reforms, parliamentary elections, and eventually a post-assad era. we argued then -- and, again, this is a year and a half, two ago -- that the united

states should be more muscular in supporting the syrian opposition, identifying those elements, individuals and groups in the opposition, that were basically secular, moderate, and obviously not the islamic radicals. felt that this was a very realistic objective. be done. those people exist, existed today, and that the united states assistance shuck only -- should be not only humanitarian, economic assistance, but limited military assistance. words, providing weapons to the syrian opposition. advocated going far toward any scenario which would american boots on the ground. that is not a realistic objective for all the reasons we after iraq and afghanistan. orderught then that in for the so-called geneva

on kofieneneva 1 anon--- kofi annan, and then geneva 2 under the mediator who just stepped down, that the whole policy supported by the united states, europeans, and international community was to obtain the ceasefire on the ground between the opposition the regime, to start on a political transition between the regime and the opposition groups leading to a scenario whereby there could be elections in the be relativelyould free and fair. era.ing into a post-assad the problem with, i believe, our to giveas that in order those geneva initiatives any chance of success, the playing

field between the opposition groups and the regime had to be leveled. the syrian regime enjoys support from russia, and from hezballah. this is materiel support, intelligence support, troops on in termsd especially the syrianh, and mostly -- receives humanitarian assistance which is very important but does not enjoy the same type of support whereby it could help level the playing field, especially the military playing field. the syrian regime enjoy a monopoly of air power, as we've seen. skies.rols the it has used these barrel bombs destroy rebel and civilian areas with devastating impact. the city, aat

len, it of the rebel looks akin to dresden after the world war ii bombing. feel that we, the united states, should have been more two years ago. i cannot sit here and claim that a significantly better place but we certainly would not be in a place where of syria now with impunity is proceeding with elections.l host: there is a related storedy on this sunday morning from times."the new york is the u.n. seeking more ways to distribute aid throughout syria in light of what you were talking about, ambassador, the situation throughout the country? guest is with the baker institute, a veteran of the u.s. foreign service,

>> then he discusses the series of private sector data collection and the implications for consumer privacy. for thisrd truman talks about the operations of the international monetary fund and we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on a spec and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> a number of live events to tell you about. will discuss his proposal for spending health care coverage, an alternative to medicaid. live from the american enterprise institute in washington, d.c. in claire mccaskill holding the first of several roundtable discussions on fighting race and sexual assault your panelists include student survivors of

assault, safety experts, and organizations like the 2:00 eastern. >> a collection of interviews with the nation's best storytellers including david mccullough. >> we're sitting here today. the french engineer. this is the gateway to the country, the statue of liberty, france,.