justice alito: yeah, the interpretation that justice breyer -- the language that justice breyer is referring to and other language in this statute, i think, could, for the purpose of avoiding first amendment problems, be limited to core social networking sites, including facebook and things like facebook, google plus, that sort of thing, and excluding a lot of the other sites that the electronic frontier says are included, like the "new york times" and betty crocker and things like that. so it would be limited just to social networking sites. would you agree that it could be read at using constitutional avoidance, it could be narrowed to at least those? mr. goldberg: so honestly, your honor, i'm not sure that it can, but it's very important for the constitutional question that that is irrelevant. and this goes back to justice sotomayor's question, which was what is how do we win this case? what is the -- what is the biggest problem with this statute? and the biggest problem is -- justice alito: well, just to put it in context. it is important for purposes of an as-applied challenge because i

chief justice. we know from rowley that there's a substantive guarantee in the idea, and we know from rowley, even in 1982, the way the act was put together, that that substantive guarantee must track the way that the iep provisions -- the individual educational program provisions work. that's at page 203 and 204 of rowley. so to get to the text and exactly what the state agrees to, you start with the fape definition, the definition for free appropriate public education. we all agree on that. sub d of that definition says that the school has to provide an education, quote, "in conformity with the iep plan." then, to understand what that means, again, this is straight out of rowley and straight out of the text, you turn to what the iep provisions provide, and those are laid out at pages 52a and 53a of the government's appendix. so what you do is you start with the general educational curriculum that applies to all kids, then you identify the child's disability and how it impacts that child's ability

justice ginsburg: but -- justice kagan: didn't -- justice ginsburg: but they are -- chief justice roberts: justice ginsburg. justice ginsburg: the most fundamental right is taken away from ex-fundamentals by some states prohibit ex-felons from voting. some states in the federal government prohibits keeping and bearing arms. those are constitutional rights. mr. goldberg: right, your honor. so both of those rights are different from the first amendment. they are equally fundamental, but they are different. so in the case of voting, north carolina does not take away -- north carolina draws the line at people who have completed their parole, their period of supervised release. but in richardson v. ramirez, the court looked to the text and history and tradition and said in section 2 of the 14th amendment there was affirmative sanction for felon disenfranchisement. if you look at that same section, which dealt with the people who rebelled in the civil war, you didn't need to restore their first amendment rights. and with the second amendment, when somebody is convicted of a crime, they immediat

- justice brennan, justice marshall. they leave a legend that i called humbly to consider. i promise you, and i promised the american people that if i am confirmed to be a member of the supreme court, i will try to be worthy of that great tradition. listen,ork hard, i will i will try to interpret the law carefully in accordance with its basic purposes. above all, i will remember that the decisions i help to make will have an effect upon the lives of many, many, americans. and that fact means that i must do my absolute utmost to see that those decisions reflect both the letter and the spirit of a law that is meant to help them. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to add this, if i may. know -- and this is important to me -- in recent weeks, there have been questions about the ethical standard that i applied in the on certain environmental cases, at a time when i had an insurance investment. i recognize that this question has been raised by people of good faith, and there is nothing more important to me than my integrity, and

justices, but there have been justices over the course of history who for whatever reasons, health,, boredom, have checked out. let their clerks do the work for them. i think we have enormous confidence that's not going to happen to neil. he's a constitutionally hard worker. two, he's been exposed to a lot. that we know from his time in practice. not only was he an active trial lawyer but he worked for both sides of the v, as i like to call it. i'll give you a sampler of some of the cases he worked on. with me. there was a case that involved refund anticipation laws issued by an accounting firm. loans where people could got get an advance on their government refund. the bad part was they had a sneaky 400% interest rate affixed to them. neil and i and others put together a class action. hopefully i won't be struck by a bolt of lightning. we represented the plaintiffs in that case, and we tried to get a class certified because we thought these loans were really abusive. ultimately they were stopped. our class representive in that case was an absolutely impressive army master sergeant.

justice o'connor has been a pioneer justice alito:. for dedicated service -- i'm very thankful to the president for nominating me and i am also thankful to the members of this committee and many other senators who took time from their busy schedules to meet with me. that was a great honor for may. i appreciate all of the courtesies that were extended to make during those visits. i want to thank senator lautenberg and government -- governor whitman for coming kind and for their introductions. an old story about a lawyer has come to my mind. i thought i might begin this afternoon i sharing that story. the story goes as follows. this was a lawyer who never argued a case before. again --argument began, one of the justices said how had you begotten here? the lawyer was rather nervous and he took the question literally and he said i came ohioon the baltimore and railroad. this story has come to my mind because in recent weeks i have often asked myself how the world did i get here? i want to try to angela today. not by saying that i came here

i know justice alito is not -- no longer -- for those of you know, the justices, most of them except justice alito pool their law clerks to help review the certifications that come and petitions for asking the court to review a case and it is having -- written these memos it a tedious part of every law clerk's week. justice alito is not in that process. he likes to have the clerks review all of the petitions under his own standards. but that wasn't true the first year he was on the court. as i remember, justice alito, was in the cert pool for a while until he got his feet under him on the court and decided what he wanted to do. so i don't know whether the judge has any particular plan about that. i'm sure we'll all find out. i'm also, you know, wouldn't be surprised if, you know, you can change your mind about that over time. on criminal law jurisprudence, i don't know if anyone else has an opinion about that. he's, i think, there are a number of cases where like justice scalia, if the law says the defendant gets to win, the defendant gets to win. and that's sort of the end of it. so

he clerked for justice kennedy. i'sure it would be a special thing for those two to sit on the same court together. as you can all tell or no, being a law clerk isn't it important relationship. i am sure they would look forward to that. >> we have time for one more question. if not, join me in thanking the panel. [applause] announcer: ahead of tomorrow's supreme court nomination for neil gorsuch, here supreme court justice sonia sotomayor talking about her experiences with the senate nomination process and confirmation hearings. justice sotomayor: within a couple of months, interestingly enough, of my actual hearing

chief justice. the hypothetical, both of my friends under the site have said there's a bivens claim for the boy who shot next to the officer. take that position into this hypothetical. the officer shoots the ball it, shoots the gun. the bullet leaves the gun. it's constitutionally -- there's constitutional consequences as the bullet travels all the way to the border. if there is a boy between the bullet, i mean the gun and sergio, and that bullet goes through that boy in the u.s., and the same bullet hit sergio, their position is there's a bivens claim and is a constitutional constraint as to the first one who dies not the second point that dies. the conduct occurring in the united states, 100% of it, if it gives a bivens claim, if it gives a normal standard bivens claim to the point shot somewhere with the ball and then does not give one to sergio hernandez into being anomalous. as to justice kennedy is question on the fourth amendment, boumediene decided that it is a functional test. it's a questi

justice beginsburg, justice breyer, justice kagan were not asks to the question asks judge gorsuch should not be either. we should evaluate the nomination on the record, on the merit, and on thatground i have every confidence that judge gorsuch will be confirmed as the next associates justice of the supreme court. >> senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge gorsuch, congratulations on nomination. you're a man after considerable qualifications and experience and i i can say you're a map of strong opinions. but the path before this committize not to determine whether you are a man of convicts, rather, it's incumbent upon us to determine whether the views you espouse andy your interpretation of the constitution take measure of the challenges the american people face every day. they must determine whether your understanding of the founding documents is one that will make real its promise of justice and equality to all americans, black and white, immigrants, native americans, gays, straight, and transgender. we must determine whether your interpretation of our laws and the constituti

justice white, justice brennan and justice marshall. they leave an inspiring legacy th have correctly caed humbling to consider. i promise you, and i promise the american people, that if i am confirmed to be a member of the supreme court, i will try to be worthy of that great tradition. i will work hard, i will listen, i will try to interpret the law carefully. in accordance with the basic purposes. remember the digs make will have an effect upon the lives of many, many americans. and that fact means i must do my absolute utmost to see that those decisions reflect both the letter and the spirit of a law that is meant to help them. thank you, mr. chairman. i might add one thing on a slight live different subject. i want to add this, if i may. and that is recently i know that in -- this is important to me -- that in recent weeks there have been questions raised about the ethical standards that i applied in city sitting environmentat cases in the first second at a time when i had an insurance investment in lloyd. i recognize that this ques

i guess i'm with so many other people who come before me, justice story, justice black, yes, justicean, who sitting at this table said we're all originalists in this sense and i believe we are. >> well, judge, i thank you for that very scholarly and erudite answer. you're right, justice kagan gave an answer that had many similar aspects and said, we apply what they say, what they meant to do, so in that sense we are all originalists. and -- ashley: we'll jump in here. ted cruz speaking to judge neil gorsuch as he continues through the confirmation process in front of the senate judiciary committee. we'll jump in with seeing markets hit session lows. down 245 points. down 232 with four minutes before the closing bell. down 1% on the, nasdaq down 1 1/2% and also on the s&p as well. health care reform could stumble at the first her dell, and that has concerned the markets and perhaps the rest of the agenda to the trump administration. could it get trapped in washington. could pro-growth hopes and aspirations be stuck in the quagmire of washington. concerns among health insurers moving l

we've all seen or heard or read reports about how justices and history, certainly not current justice, but there have been justices over the course of history for whatever reasons, health, age, boredom, some checked out, let their clerks do the work for them. i think we have enormous confidence that's not going to happen to neil gorsuch. he is a constitutionally hard worker. two, he's been exposed to a lot. that we know from his time in practice. not only was he an active trial lawyer, but he worked for both sides of the "v," as i like to characterize it, plaintiffs and defendants, state courts, federal courts. i'll just give you a sampling of some of the cases he worked on with me. there was a case that involved refund anticipation laws issued by an accounting firm. loans where people could get an advance on their government refund. that's the good part. the bad part was, they had a sneaky 400% interest rate affixed to them and neil and i and others put together a class action. that word -- hopefully i won't be struck by a bolt of lighting, but we represented the plaintiffs in that c

justices mayor and justice -- justice sototomayor and justic kagan -- in the years, justice scalia and ustice sotomayor were in competition over who would ask f the most questions. scalia narrowed her out quite a bit but nowadays she wins hands own. >> i am a freshman. i was ondering if any of the ways in you approached adversity in your professional career helps you in combating any challenges you faced as a mother and in your courageous battle with cancer? >> never to have a defeatist attitude. i told the story earlier this afternoon about my model when i had ancreatic cancer was the great meadow soprano -- mezo soprano. she said i will live. not that i hope to live. that was my ttitude. i was going to beat his. one of the things i did after the cancer bout, i did a ew public interest announcements because i was trying to encourage women to get colonoscopies. women think of a breast cancer and they think of a varying cancer but they don't realize what a killer of women colon cancer an be. the attitude is, i am going to surmount this, whatever it is. the same thing when my husband had

justice roberts and justice in cn and stare decisis -- justice sotomayor two no republican would have chosen justice kagan but how would they not qualified they have. lived exemplary lives well qualified with years on the bench now the shoe is on the affront remember after voted 45 all the headlines in the "washington post" were this will ensure he gets primary. they were right for abouty. wasn't the only reason but that was the main reason.e mainr i made it through just fine. i dunno how as a nation this clea had 98 more negative 90 / nothing what happens between now and then? had we go from being able to understand this call leo was well qualified and then there recognized elections matter i dunno how we got there but for us to turn around to go back to where we were. >> we have already met once before in negative office and many of us are looking forward to hearing from you. and they have no more responsibility. they all value on the supreme court coming at the unprecedented time in our country's history in that single moment in those foundational elements including the rule of law

justice beginsburg, justice breyer, justice kagan were not asks to the question asks judge gorsuch should not be either. we should evaluate the nomination on the record, on the merit, and on thatground i have every confidence that judge gorsuch will be confirmed as the next associates justice of the supreme court. >> senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge gorsuch, congratulations on nomination. you're a man after considerable qualifications and experience and i i can say you're a map of strong opinions. but the path before this committize not to determine whether you are a man of convicts, rather, it's incumbent upon us to determine whether the views you espouse andy your interpretation of the constitution take measure of the challenges the american people face every day. they must determine whether your understanding of the founding documents is one that will make real its promise of justice and equality to all americans, black and white, immigrants, native americans, gays, straight, and transgender. we must determine whether your interpretation of our laws and the constituti

chief justice.the hypothetical, both of my friends on the other side has said there's a bivens claim. take that into this hypothetical. the officer shoots the gun, the bullet believes that god. this constitutional consequences if it travels all the way to the border. if there is a void between the god and it goes through that in the u.s. in the same bullet hit sergio, their position is they didn't play than a constitutional constraint as to the first boy who dies, but not the second. the conduct occurred in the united states, 100% of it. if it gave a bivens claim to the boy who shot somewhere with the bullet and it does not give one to sergio fernandez and that he and tom allis. after justice kennedy's question on the fourth amendment, it is a functional test, a question of justice and bias boumidien suggested. it has nothing to do with the application of this feature by shooting someone had to the search inside the property. boumediene confirms the fact pattern would be enough by limited constraint

the approach taken by justice scalia for justice thomas or judge bork. while it's gained some popularity within conservative circles, originally semi-believe remains outside the mainstream moderate constitutional jurisprudence. it has been 25 years since an originalist has been nominated to the supreme court, given what we've seen from justice scalia, justice thomas and judge gorsuch on record, i believe it would go beyond being a philosophy and an agenda. we know conservatives and the millionaires who fund them have a clear agenda. anti-choice, antienvironment, pro-corporate. and these groups are obviously confident that judge gorsuch shares their agenda. the first person interviewed judge gorsuch in this process explains these groups did not ask who's a really smart lawyer whose been really accomplished? instead, a nominee who understands these things like we do. after all, judge gorsuch has been described by former leader of the republican party is a true loyalist and a good, strong conservative. now, the concerns i have about judge gorsuch's judicial

. >> lou: ♪ >> social justice -- >> social justice -- >> social justice.ohn: social justice, something leftists talk about. >> social justice is code for good things no one needs to argue for, and no one dare be against. >> save the whales. >> gays in the military now! >> free nelson mandela. >> they freed him already. john: what's the enemy of social justice? >> capitalism is really what is the oppressive force. john: so what must people do? >> spread those resources. john: when that's tried, people have to wait in endless lines for their social justice. >> [inaudible] john: social justice -- >> if we don't get it -- john: that's our show tonight. ♪ ♪ >> and now, john stossel. john: are you for social justice? i want to say i am because if i'm not, wouldn't that mean i'm for social injustice? that sounds terrible. it's why social justice is such a powerful slogan. it usually means, well, i'm not clear exactly what it means. it can mean so many things. jonah goldberg explains that in this video for prager university. >> ask ten lib calls to tell you -- lib

i guess i'm with so many other people who come before me, justice story, justice black, and yes, justice kagan who sitting at this table said we are all originalists in this sense. and i believe we are. >> well, judge, i thank you for that very scholarly area that you answered. you are right that justice kagan gave an answer that had many similar aspects and said that we apply what they say, what they meant to do, so in that sense we are all originalists. and you know, you reference the kilo case, it serves well to rebut the caricature that some on the left try to paint of originalism, there, dealing with thermal imaging the notion that gosh how could the framers possibly imagine modern contraptions, well thermal imaging did not exist in the 17 hundreds, the framers had no idea what it was, so under what some of the democrats suggested you would assume that some of the originalists on in the case would line up saying gosh the fourth amendment doesn't cover that, and 5-4 was written by justice scalia, joined by justice thomas. and indeed justice stevens dissented in that case, so i think

the justice breyer had. of course you can say that appeared >> if i understand your question, the reason bivens should be allowed to fall the conduct happens in the united states is because the anonymous. >> all the conduct happens in the united states. >> it would be anomalous to save the border patrol agent shoots northwest and eased pure with all due respect is not the same but the drones because there's no proximity a new cross-border shooting. the drone go somewhere else to do something else. >> what about a different approach. i want your reaction because you expressed at the editor preview have anything to add. it took place at the border, not be on the border at the border. the border is the river. we have a treaty that says the river. we also have a treaty that says a line down the middle, but it will be made teen by mexico and there are many documents including the treaty, the famous treaty and dried up lake god which referred to the river. so it has not taken place in the foreign country had towar

>> justice alito, no. so our rule involves all of the conduct occurring on the united states side and i acknowledge a w, as justice breyer said, would be fleiss for our side but more importantly, the border patrol is 44,000 strong along our southwest border and only interact with mexican nationals. we've had ten shootings across the border. though we might get the w at will at least not turn off the constitution. >> mr. hilliard, your rule would be the same if this was the first time it happened. if it was one person and the other facts were the same. right? >> my rule may be the same but my response to the question wouldn't have as much meat on it because we're here after many of these shootings that occurred and we're here because the interaction of the border patrol in this area, the government has taken the position that on border, the constitution turns off if the deadly force goes across the border. >> an anterior question. it has been argued that the constitution is only for people who are within th

>> no, justice alito. of course, it wouldn't be different. >> what rule would apply there. >> the rule would apply if he was 19 standing unarmed in mexico when was shot. >> what if he was armed but he had his hands up. >> again, we're not asking for a win here. we're simply asking if the constitution applies and that he can, the defense of self-defense by the officer can happen at the trial court level. >> what if he wasn't in this culvert but he was 200 yards beyond in mexico. would it be different then? >> it may it be under the bu ma din element of nature of the site. so this culvert is unique. if the court, i would invite the court to look at exhibit 180 of the petition's an ben dix which is a picture of the culvert. >> what if the officer was not standing in the united states but actually ran a short distance across the border into mexico? that would seem to be worse, wouldn't it? would you say the rule would be different there. >> justice alito, it may be because first the border patrol agents are st

justice kennedy. i'm sure it would be a special thing for those two to sit on the same port together. being a law clerk it is an important relationship. >> we have time for one more question. if not, join me in thanking the panel.

justice story, justice black. yes, justice kagan who sitting at this table said we're all originalists in this sense. i believe we are. >> judge, i thank you for that very scholarly answer. you are right. justice kagan gave an answer that had many similar aspects and said we apply what they say, what they meant to do, so in that sense, we are all originalists. you know, you reference the kilo case. i think it does -- it selves well to rebut the caricature of originalists. how could the framers possibly imagine modern contraptions? thermal images didn't exist in the 1700s. the framers had no idea what it was. so under the caricature that the democrats have suggested, you would assume the originalists in the case would all line up on the side of saying, gosh, the fourth amendment doesn't cover that. yet the kilo case, the majority opinion, 5-4 was written by justice scalia. the leading originalist on the court. it was joined by justice thomas. indeed justice stephens dissented in that case. so i think that case illu

the department of justice will require the jurisdictions applying for department of justice grants to certify compliance with 1373 as a condition of receiving those awards. this policy is entirely consistent with the department of justice is office of justice that was issued just last summer under the previous administration. this guidance requires state and local jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with section 1373 in order to be eligible for grants. it also made clear that violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment for eligibility of future grants. the department of justice will also take all lawful steps to clawback any funds awarded to jurisdictions that willfully violate 1373. in the current fiscal year, the department of justice is office of justice programs and community oriented policing services anticipates awarding more than $4.1 billion in grants. i strongly urge our nation , states and cities to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws and to rethink these

but justice kagan and justice sotomayor t. cave from a view of the law that i don't except in terms of why would have chosen but well within the mainstream but of judicial philosophy from the left i think they'll let exemplary lives quite frankly. and i thought are these the worst woman in the world greg say live contemporary lives, highly qualified and that is why i voted for weem. but now i'm beginning to wonder how the game is played by remember when i voted for them negative harry. harry reid is around here somewhere he told me something the basically said a wish more people would follow senator gramm's lead boat -- rooting for the holly -- highly qualified nominees may be that will happen in the future. whether or not he is highly qualified i am dying to hear where he is not. and qualified to be sitting here been in the occupied down the street. paisa the musical hamilton in "the federalist papers" 78, , of the role of the senate bill specially favored in the stay in association to the family and most supreme court justic

justice is our name and justice is our mission. attorney general robert jackson famously said the citizens' safety lies in a prosecutor who deal with human kindness, seeks the truth, serves the law and approaches the task with humility. for me, the grand hall ways of main justice echo with the voices of mentors and friends. they taught me to ask the right questions. first, what can we do? second, what should we do? and third, how will we explain it? senators, before taking on a position of this solemn responsibility, it's important to know who you are and what you stand for. my oath is an obligation. it requires me to support and defend the constitution of the united states. to bear full faith and allegiance to the constitution and well and faithfully discharge the duties of my office. as you know, i've taken that oath a few times. i've administered that oath many times. i know it by heart. i understand what it means. and i intend to honor it. if you confirm my nomination, i will work to defend the integrity and independence of our

with justice stevens and justic. scalia that is a line of some might think it's unusual but actually it is exactly the sort of thing that happens quietly day in and day out in the courts across the country. people realize they agree about 60% of the time for justice scalia and justice breyer agreed more of them at all in thean not toughest cases in the entire system. here is another example about my record. over the last decade, i participated in 2,700 appeals all cases that are hard only about 5% of all federal lawsuits make their way into the decision of the court of appeals. i served with judges appointed by president obama all the way back to president johnson and we can hear 20% of the continental united states. but in the west we listen to onw another, respect can't tolerate, cherish a different point of view and seek consensus wheneveo we can. the clerks tell me 97% of those 2,700 cases that i decided were decided unanimously and i had been in the majority 99% of the time. that is my record and that is how we

it first hand in the justice i worked for, justice blackman. you may have seen it in your brethren on the bench much more directly and closely than i so we can't anticipate with precision and certainty what justices will do once they are appointed for a lifetime on the nation's highest court. but the american people hold us on this panel accountable for making our best judgements based on all the information we can glean or elicit and so that's why i've probed as hard as i can for your believes, your commitments. i think they matter and i want to thank you for being here and sharing with us your ideas to the extent you have and say that i will be submitting more written questions as well and i will reserve my own judgment till i have the chance to assess your responses to them and the responses that you've given us over the past three days. thank you very much, judge. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator graham. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. judge, i think we're getting toward the end here. and i only have one request that i never hear a

any good prosecutor, and are some good ones, wants to seek justice not conviction.april 1, 1940, then attorney general robert h jackson gave a beautiful inspired speech call the federal prosecutor. if you google jackson and the federal prosecutor you can read it in its entirety. by the end in the supreme court had said that the united states, the job at united states attorney is to seek justice, not convictions. sometimes that even means a guilty person goes free. but when you wrongfully convict somebody you have committed multiple crimes because not only have you taken the life and liberty of somebody who did nothing wrong, the person who did commit the actual crime is out there still doing it. you can look at the case in texas and, wharton was sentenced to prison for 25 years come allegedly from murdering his wife. dna evidence exonerated 25 years late while the person who actually committed the crime was out there and did it again. michael morton lost his son, 25 years of his life, the best years of his life, and the prosecutor who had hidden the bloody van dan a

chief justice roberts i guess for a dozen years, is that right, into the roberts court, chief justiceoberts has said repeatedly what a miracle the rule of law is and how important it is and for him to carry on that legacy. what we don't have martial law in the streets, where people listen to judges and do what judges have had to do, even when they disagree. i guess my question is that in the situation where we had a purely political fight over an otherwise qualified nominee, who never was even given a chance to have a hearing and now we have another nominee who is very different in many respects, why should the public trust the judiciary? why should the public, even if we say it's one step removed? even if judge gorsuch could be fair and impartial, why should the public trust the judiciary because of the way the politicians are using the judiciary as a puppet? >> will look, i think abstracting from the particular situation, this is an attention that adheres to the constitution. you have an inevitably political method of selecting judges, yet we expect the people selected by that metho

you cited an opinion by justice thomas in your concurrence, joined by justice scalia, suggesting that all contribution limits should be ubt subject to strict strikeout me. so, could you clarify for us, do you think there is any basis for applying strict scrutiny to conlicks that apply across the board? why else would you have cited that opinion? >> i'm happy to say it again. the facts of the case, and that's what i was deciding were uneven contribution limits. it was permissible to give more to major party candidate than to minor party candidates. the law as i now you are well aware, senator, under buckley, says the contribution to candidates is a first amendment fundamental right. it says that i was quoting buckley i'm sure or citing buckley to that effect. then the question becomes what level of scrutiny should we apply to that case? buckley suggests it's something less than strict strikeout me in the first amendment context for contributions. that's the instruction that i as lower court judgev in the first amendment context. but this was an equal protection challenge okay, saying i

i have seen justice brier n justice kagan go through it also the awareness to be a part of history to get along with eight new colleagues to a be sitting next to for decades requiring equal parts of humility, that is what justices justice kagan and justice breyer and to make up the word judge gorsuch has the ability we come from different sides of the political spectrum and disagree about many things but most importantly all people equal before the law is a judge's duty to uphold the constitution above all the judge has done that during his time on the bench and will continue to do so as a justice on the supreme court is my honor to recommend his nomination be looked at favorably before the senate to speak to have a busy schedule. thanks for being here. we will wait until you have to change what you have to do. [laughter] >> judge raise your right hand do you affirm the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god greg. >> i do. >> please be seated and tell us what you want us to hear at this point. >> mr. chairman, senator feinstein and

and i'm not talking about current justices, but justices over the course of history who for whatever reasons, health, age, boredom, checked out. let the clerks dot work for them. i think we have enormous confidence that won't happen to neil gorsuch. he is hard worker. two, he's been exposed to a lot. that we know from his time at practice. not only was he an active trial lawyer but he works on both side of the v, as i like it call it. he worked for plaintiffs and defendants. i'll give you an example of cases he worked on with me. there was an accounting firm and loans people could get on their tax refund, and the sneaky part is there was a 400% interest rate on them. hopefully i won't be struck by a bolt of lightning, but we represented plaintiffs in this case. we tried to get a class certified because we thought these loans were abusive and ultimately they were stopped. our class representative was this army master sergeant, female, african-american, she agred to serve the class representation for one reason and one reason alone. she thought it bass the right thing to do. but i reme

i thought we needed nine justices then. i still think we need nine justices. some people say liberals are going to change their mind now. we're not. i think we need a fully functioning supreme court. so the fact that the senate to me did not fulfill what i consider to be their proper advice and consent role under the constitution after the president fulfilled his right to put forth a nominee, a really incredible nominee at that, i think both flouted constitutional norms and institutional norms that are broken down in the senate unfortunately. whether i g uess that leads me o your second question, whether that casts a shadow over gorsuch. i could see why people would view it as a stolen seat. my feeling is i want to take advantage of the moment as christine said, this rare moment to talk about the supreme court, the meaning of the constitution in a moment when the american public is really paying attention more than we often do. so from my perspective, i want to engage in that fight and talk about it and not just talk about judge garland and what happened to hi

it first hand in the justice i worked for, justice blackman. you may have seen it in your brethren on the bench much more directly and closely than i so we can't anticipate with precision and certainty what justices will do once they are appointed for a lifetime on the nation's highest court. but the american people hold us on this panel accountable for making our best judgements based on all the information we can glean or elicit and so that's why i've probed as hard as i can for your believes, your commitments. i think they matter and i want to thank you for being here and sharing with us your ideas to the extent you have and say that i will be submitting more written questions as well and i will reserve my own judgment till i have the chance to assess your responses to them and the responses that you've given us over the past three days. thank you very much, judge. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator graham. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. judge, i think we're getting toward the end here. and i only have one request that i never hear a

not long before justice scalia died, chief justice roberts gave a talk up in boston, and he expressedismay that his three most recent colleagues had gotten a lot of votes against them because they had all of them, he said, before qualified, and that's a all the 123459 should care about. and i think what he meant by qualified are they able lawyers. and i just want to ask the group generally, under that definition of qualified, does judge gorsuch, graduate of columbia and hard lard law school -- harvard law school, doctorate from ox farred be, is he qualified this that sense? >> i'd just say if that were one of the major issues to consider, we would have justice garland. so, you know, i'd embrace it. i think that's gone by the wayside, though, because that clearly was not considered by the senate last year when president obama nominated merrick garland. >> so garland was qualified, you're not saying gorsuch is unqualified, you're saying that's not the only criteria we're looking at anymore. what are the other criteria we should be looking at? >> well, i think he's certainly well-credent

justice storey, justice black and yes, justice kagan said we are all originalalists in this sense and i believe we are. senator cruz: i thank you for that scholarly answer. you are right justice kagan gave an answer that had similar aspects and said we apply what they say, what they meant to do, so in that sense we are all originalalists. and you know, you referenced the yler case, it serves well to but the characteristics that some on the left try to paint. the notion that gosh, how could the framers possibly imagine modern contraptions. thermal imaging did not exist. the framers had no idea what it was. so under the characteristics that the democrats have suggested you would assume the originalalists on the case would line up on the side saying, gosh, the 4th amendment doesn't cover that and yet the kylo case was written by justice scalia, perhaps the originalalist on the court and joined by justice thomas and indeed justice stevens dissented in that case. that case illustrates that any judge doing his or her job, a thorough understanding of the original understanding of the languag