a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite rovider. host: our guest on this week's newsmakers is nan aron. founder and president of alliance for justice opposing the nomination of brett kavanaugh. we will learn more about why. thanks for being our guest. nan: thank you for having s. host siobhan hughes and mark sherman are the people asking questions. siobhan: what is the significance of this nomination and why does it feel so much more monumental than the prior

nominee neil gorsuch. nan: it feels more monumental because it is because brett kavanaugh is being considered for the seat held by anthony kennedy on some very significant issues set himself apart from some of his conservative colleagues on the court, on abortion, lgbtq issues, on juvenile rights. so, he was considered to be the swing on the supreme court. neil gorsuch, when he was being considered for the supreme court, was up for antonin scalia's seat hard right. anthony kennedy more the man in the middle. therefore, this has taken on much, much greater significance. it's also taken on greater meaning, i think, because the out very as laid

specifically -- in fact, while he was running for his office, that if elected he would appoint an individual who met two very specific riteria. one, he was looking for someone who was against the affordable care act, and two he was specifically looking for an individual who would oppose roe vs. wade. so, this president has himself set out a very volatile process by setting out criteria, utsourcing the choice to two outside groups, heritage action, federal society and coming up with a nominee on a number of issues related to american life has shown us he would turn the clock back.

siobhan: given the stakes you laid out from your perspective do democrats have a realistic chance of stopping this nominee? nan: i would say democrats and republicans have a realistic chance of stopping this nomination. at the moment really the only hing we know, which is significant about brett kavanaugh are, one, we know what donald trump was looking for. wo, we are reading those 300 legal opinions that he's written so we know what his record is. nd our belief is that once the american people understand his record, once they hear and read and have an opportunity to eview the thousands pages of

documents describe be his work with ken starr, independent counsel, once they have an pportunity to review his records when he was in the white house counsel as office, staff secretary, and other offices, there is a trove of documents, and i believe once the american people have an opportunity to come to understand his full record, they will convince, they will persuade and reach out to senators both on the democratic side and republican side and ask them to oppose kavanaugh. mark: i want to turn to one ssue that has gotten attention already and that is the idea of kavanaugh's view of presidential power and your view he won't stand up to donald trump especially in relation to the meddling in the

2016 election. we know from the past clinton appointees against in the ball la jones and watergate tapes case. why are you persuaded that a justice kavanaugh wouldn't stand up to donald trump if it comes to that? nan: mark, it goes back to brett kavanaugh's whole record. it is interesting. when he worked with the independent counsel, ken starr, back in the 1990's, he ggressively sought president clinton's records. he went to court three times to get access to president clinton's records. and he fought really hard to get the president to turn over a whole slew of information. interestingly, when he went to work for president bush right after the clinton

administration, interestingly, one of the first things brett avanaugh did was push for an executive order that would have shielded presidential papers, george bush's presidential papers, even though there was a law requiring those papers to be released. so, it is his early action with the bush administration and then from then on he took the position the president should be exempt from criminal prosecutions, investigations. he's talked about the extraordinary power that a president has. so, to us he appears to be very much of a partisan player. when president clinton was in office he sought disclosure. the minute president bush came in office it was the opposite. based on what he has said and ritten and his actions, it

ppears that he would very much side with president trump in trying to shield all of his actions, memos, papers, from the american people. mark: but he has also called in addition to calling for ongress to pass a law to shield the president from prosecution and investigation he has said that he believes that that same law should include a provision that would basically require a president to respond to grand jury subpoenas with the exception of national security is the one exception to that. that would seem to cut against that grain that you just described. nan: that was a while ago. what we know most recently about brett kavanaugh's views is he would do what he could to shield president trump from any kind of investigation,

subpoena, anything else at this point. siobhan: you have brought up mr.kavanaugh's white house service. what do you think the chances are that the senate will see all of the documentation related to that period of his service or chances access to that will be limited? nan: we would expect that chairman grassley, who chairs the senate judiciary committee, will request and obtain all of the records being sought about his years in the white house. there's actually some precedent for senator grassley to do that. john roberts worked in the white house, elena kagan worked n the white house. and they made -- they released all of their records including e-mails. so there is direct precedent

supporting the notion that these records need to be made available and carefully reviewed. and we would expect chairman grassley to obey that precedent. i think it is also important because a supreme court nomination is so critically important that the american people ought to understand and understand well who it is who is being considered for that particular role. therefore, i think it is incumbent on the republican party to make all of this nformation accessible, valuable, and give people ample time to review and digest it. siobhan: there is so much paperwork. how quickly could the senate judiciary committee get to a hearing. nan: it is interesting you say that because i just read that rob rosenstein is hiring or calling out to assistant u.s. attorneys to help review all of those records.

i have no idea what the timing will be. ll i would say is it is really the responsibility of the senate judiciary committee chair to be fair and open and make that information available in time so that people have an pportunity to review it. mark: even before any of these ecords have been released your organization has come to the conclusion that he shouldn't be confirmed. is there anything that you would consider a smoking gun that you would point say republican senators that you would need to attract to defeat that nomination? nan: i would say we already have two smoking guns. one is, really, what president trump said, that he is seeking someone whose mind is made up on the issue of healthcare and

the issue of abortion. really, in all the years that we have been toiling in these judicial fields i don't think i have ever come across a resident who was so direct about what he was looking for nd i would say when you take a look at brett kavanaugh's record in fact he does take an optional position to both roe and the affordable care act. i would say that when you just step back for a minute in the rocess, i think that what we re looking for in a judge or

ustice is someone whose mind isn't made up, someone who can approach cases with an open mind and be fair minded. here you have a candidate who is already subscribing to some very specific views which, just imagine, what donald trump couldn't do -- repealing the affordable care act -- he will achieve to do by putting brett kavanaugh on supreme court, epriving millions of americans of their healthcare. i would say that in and of itself is a smoking gun. but, to further the conversation, we expect there to be thousands of pages of ocuments released, and hopefully ample time to review

those and i know people will be very interested to learn more about kavanaugh's views. in fact, at his d.c. circuit court hearing -- i think it was 2004 -- he was specifically asked about his views and what he did with respect to overseeing to have a conversation about torture, abu ghraib. he ducked those questions. in fact. a letter sent to him by enators leahy and durbin investigated dismay over his answers. so i think it is important to see those documents and perhaps other issues will be made ublic. mark: you raised abortion and health care in your answer. there are some conservatives who fear that in choosing an stablishment republican that president trump did not go as conservative as he might have and they point to two opinions

avanaugh wrote where he didn't go as far as he might have or even the abortion cases as far as one of his colleagues was ready to go in the case of the immigrant teen. nan: there is no question in the case of that 17-year-old mmigrant, she pursued all of the procedures that were in place at the time to get an abortion, and what brett kavanaugh did is said you know what, i think we need to put a few more burdens in the way of her getting an abortion. so, while he may not have come ut outright in opposition to roe v. wade, if she had had to

fulfill those burdens, it would have made having an abortion much more difficult. he did so, i would also say, in an incredibly patronizing way. she did exactly what she had to do, and the d.c. circuit en banc said she should have this abortion and he said no. so, it is not just the case of a 17-year-old immigrant. he expressed satisfaction with rehnquist's dissent in roe v. wade as well. so, i think we have a pretty good idea of where brett kavanaugh stands on the issue of abortion. i also want to make clear, this is not just a fight over abortion and healthcare. when you read and learn about brett kavanaugh's record across a wide range of issues, not just his views on presidential power or what he said and has written and done on healthcare and abortion but the other major concern are his views on the role of administrative gencies.

he voted against the existence of the consumer financial protection bureau. he voted against clean air act, clean water act. he vote against consumer protections, against net neutrality. i can think of few instances where he voted in favor of everyday people when their lives are affected or regulated by government agency. there's a lot in this record, not just healthcare, abortion, and there is much to be explored and learned. >> eight minutes to go. iobhan: is there any trump nominee who could be acceptable to you given you feel trump has been so explicit about what he is looking for? an: trump released a list of

5 names and our organization alliance for justice researched each and every one of them and came to the conclusion that one were acceptable. in part based on their records but it is also in part because of the criteria donald trump aid he would apply in choosing a supreme court justice. so i would have to say the answer is no. but when you step back there are probably republican lawyers across this country who would make great justices. we in fact know of some of these people. if i tell you who they are, it would probably be the kiss of eath for them. but he's looking for a very specific person, and no one on that list would be deemed to be

a really good choice for the american people. ark: do you think your group and others on your side of the issues might adopt what the federalist society and heritage foundation did and produce lists of possible candidates going forward under a democratic presidency? nan: absolutely. in fact, we over the years at alliance for justice have been very actively identifying and recruiting really good candidates for judgeships. we have done that for over 40 years, and we are really pleased that so many of the individuals that we suggested have become judges. we will continue to do that. we are proud of the fact that resident obama chose two xcellent supreme court justices, elena kagan and sonia sotomayor. president clinton selected ruth

stephen nsberg and breyer and all excellent and all garnered republican and democratic votes. siobhan: you had mentioned republicans also being in a osition to block the nomination. who are the republicans you see most likely to flip? nan: the two republicans that are talked about the most are susan collins and lisa murkowski. susan collins from maine and lisa murkowski from alaska. both of those fine women voted against the repeal of the ffordable care act because pre-existing conditions is now being litigated in the courts and i should also mention that the trump administration said pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional. i would think both of those senators would be very concerned about that litigation

nd very concerned that brett kavanaugh is confirmed and would be sitting in on a case challenging preexisting conditions in the supreme court. siobhan: can you talk about the potential for rand paul to be something of a wild card in this debate given his concerns about privacy, libertarian leanings? nan: hard to say about rand paul. i know that he's spoken out, raised concerns. but i can't predict at the end of the day where he will be except we may learn a lot more about brett kavanaugh's views regarding privacy. the other thing i would say about the two republican women is they have for years professed to be supportive of row vs. wade and i think we are going to look to those two women to be bold, to be courageous, and to stand up. siobhan: let's turn to the political arena because we are close to the november

elections. what does timing do for both parties going into the midterm? nan: i think the timing works for us and i think it works for s because it is an opportunity for the supreme court to be a conversation in all those elections, which is a critically important conversation. during the presidential in 2016 one candidate president trump talked a lot about it, one candidate not so much. this will be an opportunity for candidates, house races, senate races, to really talk about what the stakes are in an election. and the stakes really for the supreme court obviously a presidential election is even ore important because who is elected president can name justices and judges to the lower courts, but i think it is a very good time.

i also think if you take a walk back in history a little, let's go back to daniel mannion. i know that is many years ago, 1986. there was one republican senator, slade gordon. gordon was all set to vote against daniel mannion for a seat on the seventh circuit court of appeals. at the last moment slade gordon changed his mind, voted for daniel mannion and you know what, slade gordon lost his seat that year. if you look back to anita hill, clarence thomas, after that huge bruising fight and hearing, a number of democrats who voted for clarence thomas faced a very hostile crowd back home. fowler in georgia lost his ace.

alan dixon was up for trying to e re-elected in illinois and he lost his seat over this particular issue. so, voters are paying attention, particularly at the supreme court level. and because there is so much more engagement and more excitement, at least on the progressive side, i think that this will be a huge issue. host: three minutes left. last question from each of you. siobhan: i wonder if the risk is you end up energizing an already energized democratic base but don't expand the pool of the public that might have oncerns. nan: my assumption is based on a lot of experience in this is that, once people come to understand who brett kavanaugh

is and what he stands for and the threats that he would pose to all of our rights and liberties, not just for two years, four years, but for a generation, i think people will come to understand just how important this debate is, this discussion is, and press their senators to vote against. mark: just to stay on the political front, there are some democrats running for re-election in the senate who are running in states that trump carried. some of whom voted for gorsuch as well. do you expect them to oppose kavanaugh with their seats on the line? nan: i do. i absolutely do. because again i think once their constituents learn more about kavanaugh, his record, and the critical importance of the supreme court, they will communicate with their senators.

>> what does the next couple of weeks and months look like for your organization? nan: oh, my goodness! 24-7. e've got lawyers, activists, researching his legal record. we are doing polling. we are figuring out people in states to be communicating with. we will be doing a full service operation engagement. around this confirmation. host: thank you for making us part your schedule. the founder and president for alliance for justice, in an aron. nan: thanks for having me. host: we are talking about president trump's supreme court pick and we have nan aron as the guest found are and president of alliance of justice which opposes the nomination. our two reporters, siobhan

hughes and mark sherman. let's start with that swing vote concept. justice kennedy didn't like to be the swing vote -- justice kennedy was not always number five every time the court swung. i'm wondering what this does to the dynamics of the court. mark: i think it changes the dynamics of the court and makes the chief justice the justice closest to the center on a range of issues where it used to be justice kennedy. so he will control on range of issues how far the court goes either to the right or occasionally to the left. it must be said you suggested that on some issues he already found himself there. health care being the prime example of that. he was the vote with the four liberal justices who upheld obamacare back in 2012. host: so the moral of the story for any presidential appointee is what?

mark: you can't predict to a certainty how anyone is going to vote on every case that might come before a justice. but there's a lot of work put in, in this case by the federalist society and others in compiling a list of candidates that conservatives feel will, in the main, deliver the kind of votes they would like to see. host: siobhan, let's go to capitol hill and talk about getting this nominee confirmed. excuse me. we talked about the list of senators, the two republican women and a number of democrats who are facing re-election who are the targets everyone's attention. joe manchin of west virginia was quoted, i'm 71 years old and i can't be whipped into voting by my democratic leader. what is the task the democratic leader has and what is the task of the republican leaders the next couple of weeks? siobhan: the republican leaders is mostly to keep all the members together and that appears to be somewhat of an

easier lift than that facing chuck schumer. he would ideally like to keep them together but he has a number of democrats up for re-election in states trump won in some places overwhelmingly and he has to calculate whether to force them to take one for the team and vote no and risk losing their seat or cut them loose. he will probably opt for the latter because barring something unforeseen the betting in washington is this nomination is likely to go through. host: so better not to lose the seats is the calculation? siobhan: play the long game. host: turn to chuck grassley. what is his task picking the date and setting the stage? siobhan: he has a tough position because his task is to stay on schedule and yet carry out the hearings in a way that preserves his credibility and credibility of the institution. the problem is this is the

candidate who's got perhaps the longest written record of anybody that trump could have chosen from those final four and so he's got to figure out how many documents to request? how to corral staff members to be able to read all those documents and how to preserve an aura of credibility that he's trying to protect? host: and they are trying to get it before the new court term? siobhan: they would like him in place a little bit earlier. mark: that's true. several justices joined the court after the term began, including justice kennedy, gentleman alito, justice thomas, justice gorsuch. there is a steep learning curve. it might not be ideal but it's certainly doable. host: as our last minute here, for both of you, the whole spectacle of judicial nomination hearings, many senators express frustration with the candor of the appointees that appear before them. how have these hearings evolved and what can the public and the

senators really learn about them? mark: well, the hearings themselves, i don't think there is much to learn. the learning occurs in the release of documents. we come to find out things we didn't previously know about candidates or about nominees. and also in the analysis of opinions. the questioning at the hearings themselves is often to be desired. siobhan: we are in a social media world right now and a social media world in had which things like the russian investigation are less prominent than they used to be and so i think the level of attention that gets brought by the general public can be a component of this. host: well, it's going to be an interesting couple weeks. we find out what the date is and learn more about the documents as they are released. thanks very much for your questions for nan this week. iobhan: good to be here.

president trump: tonight it's my honor and privilege to announce i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. >> mr. president, i am grateful to you and i'm humbled by your confidence in me. >> brett kavanaugh of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit is president trump's nominee for the supreme court. >> i'm pleased with the nominee the president has chosen and after talking with him yesterday morning, i look forward to supporting his nomination and doing whatever i can to ensure his bipartisan confirmation. if judge kavanaugh is confirmed, women's freedom to make decisions about their bodies, reforms to our health care system, the quality of our air and water and much more will be at risk. >> frankly, i cannot think of anybody who's more qualified to serve as next associate justice of the supreme court. >> follow the confirmation

process on c-span through congress as judge kavanaugh meets with key senators. the senate confirmation hearings and the vote. watch live on c-span, watch anytime on c-span.org or listen ith the free c-span radio app. >> and the house scheduled to gavel back in in about 10 minutes or so. members will debate 24 bills today including naming a dozen post offices around the country and a measure to require federal agencies preserve email and other electronic records. we'll take you live to the house floor shortly, 2:00 p.m. eastern time here on c-span. house democratic leader nancy pelosi weighed in on president trump's summit with russian president vladimir putin. she tweets, if donald trump failed to stand up to putin in front of the press, what makes you think kevin mccarthy, mitch mcconnell, and republicans in washington will defend us from a foreign adversary's attack? they've done nothing. it's on us to vote out the

sell-outs. and rrp senator lindsey graham sent out several messages about the summit writing -- missed opportunity by president trump to firmly hold russia accountable for 2016 meddling and deliver a strong warning regarding future elections. this answer by president trump will be seen by russia as a sign of weakness and create far more problems than it solves. senator graham also tweeted, finally, if it were me, i'd check the soccer ball for listening devices and never allow it in the white house. senator graham referring to the soccer ball that president putin gave to president trump during the joint news conference. you can watch all of the news conference. we're going to show it tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. in the meantime, here are some of their remarks. watch part of the news conference between the two leaders before the house gavels back in. we begin with one of the questions from a reporter. reporter: thank you. mr. president, you tweeted this morning that it's u.s.