they said the judges need more time and that the judges need more independence and that the judges need to be given opportunity for more decisions. what has the mid--- the administration done? they have taken away the time and forced more oral decisions and taken away independence. they gave us a fully redacted copy that has erased the most important parts. they won't release it.>> reporter: did they commission booz allen to do a similar report? >> i've been calling an email -- and emailing. i understand they are still under engagement with the department for other issues.>> reporter: hi, i was wondering if you feel judges are under pressure to decide cases in a certain way. like asylum granting versus under pressure to complete cases? >> there is certainly no question they are under pressure to complete cases faster. but i think -- i think i would just listen to the attorney general's remarks and you can decide what message is sent. >> reporter: i am curious about your thoughts on moving forward . if you look at data, there is a wide disparity in decision rates for judges across the co

judge thomas: no. senator hatch never? :judge thomas: no. the only caveat i would add to that would be that from time to time people want promotions or better assignments or work hours, something of that nature, but no discomfort of the nature that is being discussed here today. senator hatch: now i note that professor hill alleges improper conduct on your part during the period of november, 1981 to february or march of 1982. now isn't it true that both you and professor hill moved from the education department to the eeoc in april of that same year? judge thomas: senator, that is an odd period. the president expressed his intent to nominate me to become chairman of eeoc in february 1982, and during that very same period, to the best of my recollection, she assisted me in my nomination and confirmation process. i did in fact leave actual work at the department of education, i believe in april, and started at eeoc in may 1982, and she transferred with me. senator hatch: so, in other words, professor hill followed you to the eeoc no more than

judge kavanaugh was as engaged if not more so than the other judges. at the end of the day, he did not agree completely with the arguments that we were making. but he wrote a very thoughtful recent opinion, concurring opinion with respect to the concurring opinion with respect to the constitutionality of the consumer finance protection board. he very carefully but with the supreme court has said in the free enterprise fund case and came to a conclusion that was i thought, very persuasive. although it did not completely agree with it. very persuasive and reasonable. >> let me thank each of the witnesses for being here on this panel and i want to echo what senator feinstein said in particular, ms. weintraub. thank you for your powerful inspirational testimony. thank you for being here and being part of this panel. >> thank you. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you so much for being here and for your leadership. i have some questions that i asked yesterday of the judge about voting rights. a reference to data from the brennan center for justice showing that

judge so, mayor and judge brett kavanaugh. i will let you list what you think the most important characteristics are and if you see brett kavanaugh meeting these.>> i think intelligence and faithfulness to the law.i think judge brett kavanaugh as his reputation shows has these characteristics. i think something that maybe is underappreciated in terms of the work the supreme court does is how closely the supreme court justices work together. judge brett kavanaugh will work well as a colleague. he's talked about a team of nine working together with his colleagues on the court to achieve a goal of justice and interpreting the law fairly. i think that he would live that model if you were appointed to the supreme court. >> thank you. i will ask ms. gary but it's based upon a strong point the professor murray made that we hear a lot about what brett kavanaugh have done for people to have worked for him. she fears he may not take the average americans point of view into my mind and his work as a judge.would you want the average ameri

judge jeanine: iwhen i was a judge.u think some victim was going to come in my courtroom -- i spent my life fighting for victims. i have a reputation for that. if you think a victim was going to come in and tell me how justice should be dispensed and congress can hear, you can't ask me 36 years later, you're out of your mind. katrina i have you on again because i took your side. >> it's not a court of law. judge jeanine: it's bigger than a court of law. it's congress. >> much bigger. judge jeanine: they're the citadel of the constitution of the laws of the united states. bye. >> thank you, judge. judge jeanine: next, insider weighs in on the rod rosenstein "the new york times" story. dr. sebastian gorka who was working at the white house at the time this all unfolded joins me live. you don't want to hi miss this. what do you mean it's not working out, craig? i just introduced you to my parents. psst! craig and sheila broke up. what, really? craig and shelia broke up!? no, craig!? what happened? i don't know. is she okay

welcome to judge ashley tabaddor. we are very privileged to have you here today and i don't use the word privileged lightly. federal judges including immigration judges are generally hard from speaking publicly about issues affecting their court. so it's important to note that judge tabaddor is not here today as a representative of the department of justice but rather in her capacity as president of the national association of immigration judges. we very much appreciate her taking time out of her busy schedule to discuss the unprecedented challenges to our immigration system and to its courts that have evolved since president donald trump's administration took office and jeff sessions became the nation'sattorney general . in an effort to speed up deportation and eliminate the backlog of cases, the department of justice is imposing quotas on judges , ordering them to hear at least 100 cases a year or risk being fired. these quotas are scheduled to kick him in a little over a week time. the administration has challenged

judge kavanaugh spoke growingly of judge garland stating, chief judge garland is a brilliant jury jurist, thought, collegial, a good man, integrity. he's qualified with experience for the supreme court. all of this is equally true of judge kavanaugh. i do not think it's fair to hold judge kavanaugh responsible that judge garland is not a justice today. instead i would urge this committee to treat him as we expect to treat litigants that appear before him, on his own merits and with an open mind with someone whose views may differ from our own. our judicial system is not well-served by tit-for-tat politics. at the end of the day i support judge kavanaugh and i'm proud to induce him because he's qualified which extraordinary experience and temperament and does fit within the mainstream of legal thought. i look forward to the committee over the next few days getting to know the judge kavanaugh that i know and at the end of that process i hope you'll agree he should succeed his former boss on the supreme court. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator feinstein, members of the committee. i thank

judge kavanaugh's one of the most distinguished judges in the entire country. he has served for over 12 years now in the u.s. court of appeals to the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit is often referred to as the -- [ shouting ] >> second highest court in the land because it hears many critically important cases involving agency action in the separation of powers, during his time on the bench, judge kavanaugh's heard over a thousand cases. he's written more than 300 opinions. his opinions span nearly 5,000 pages in length, what's remarkable about judge kavanaugh's judicial record is not just its length, but its depth and its quality. judge kavanaugh's has been a true thought leader. he's written powerful opinions on the separation of powers and administrative law. he's shown that he brings a fair minded approach to questions of criminal law and employment law, on almost every issue of consequence, judge kavanaugh's made a significant contribution to our nation's juris prudence and he's won respect from both sides of the political spectrum, the committee is received

he is a very distinct as judge. the chief judge of the court that judge kavanaugh sits on. a senior official in the justice department. and i think meritted full consideration by the senate. >> for democrats, the repudiation of merrick garland stings. some say that is why democrats should try to hold up judge kavanaugh's nomination. how much of a factor is that for you? >> it is not for me. it is not a question of revenge or anything like that. i think that, what happened to judge garland was unfair and should not have happened. was a wrong of historic import. but i think judge kavanaugh deserves to be considered on his own merits. as i said before, it is not a question of professional qualifications or character or anything like that. i think it is a question of finding the right balance. we're a very divided country. we're narrowly at the margins of republicans and democrats. the last presidential election was extreme the close. the senate is externally divided and it tilts the supreme court very far to the right when the country is balanced between left and right, republ

judge. your thoughts on the end of it? >> i'm in general agreement with all of my colleagues. i had characterized the position of the nomination as a very perilous at 3:00 this afternoon, and as judge kavanaugh, being at the bottom of the hole, he has dug himself out of the hole and came back swinging about as effectively as any human could. if you are looking for an excuse or reason to vote for him, you have it. if you are looking for an excuse to vote against him, you have it because dr. ford was also credible. i do commend of the republican majority for recognizing about halfway through the afternoon session that the prosecutor from arizona was doing them no good and that the senators should be free to make their own statements and their own interrogations and i'm glad they did it. i don't know how this affects the outcome, i think it's pretty much a wash in terms of the credibility of each of the principles. >> bret: judge, as always, thank you. final thought. does he get through? >> i t

circuit court, democratic-appointed skwrublgs were just as -- judges r just as likely to join judge kavanaugh's majority opinions in full as his republican appointed colleagues about 88% of the traoeupl. -- time. two of president obama's solicitor generals praised judge kavanaugh saying he is incredibly brilliant -- he's an incredibly brilliant, careful person who is, quote, very gracious on the bench and off. one says, quote, he carries out all phases of his responsibilities as a judge in the way you'd want, in an exemplary way. so that said, judge kavanaugh is acknowledged as being highly qualified. and even though they're on the opposite side of the aisle, these legal figures respect judge kavanaugh's qualifications and depth of experience. lisa blatt who worked in the attorney general's office during the clinton, bush and obama administration said sometimes a super star is just a super star. this is the case with judge brett kavanaugh who has long been considered the most qualified nominee for the supreme court if republicans secured the white house. the senate should confirm him. she also

welcome again, judge. before i begin, i would want to give you, judge, an opportunity to introduce your family. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and senator feinstein -- >> push the red button if it's not on. >> we have opening remarks. >> yes, we are going to have. yeah. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and senator feinstein and members of the committee. i'm honored to be here today with my family. my wife ashley, proud west texan, graduate of abilene cooper high school, now the town manager of our local community where we live. our daughters margaret and liza. i thank the committee for arranging a day off from school today. my mom and dad, martha and ed kavanaugh, my aunt and uncle, nancy and mark murphy, and my first cousins, rosy and elizabeth murphy. i'm very honored to be here, honored to have my family here. i'm here because of them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we're delighted to have your family here. before i make my opening remarks, i want to set out the ground rules for the hearing. i want everyone to be

judge thomas: no. senator hatch never? :judge thomas: no. the only caveat i would add to that would be that from time to time people want promotions or better assignments or work hours, something of that nature, but no discomfort of the nature that is being discussed here today. senator hatch: now i note that professor hill alleges improper conduct on your part during the period of november, 1981 to february or march of 1982. now isn't it true that both you and professor hill moved from the education department to the eeoc in april of that same year? judge thomas: senator, that is an odd period. the president expressed his intent to nominate me to become chairman of eeoc in february 1982, and during that very same period, to the best of my recollection, she assisted me in my nomination and confirmation process. i did in fact leave actual work at the department of education, i believe in april, and started at eeoc in may 1982, and she transferred with me. senator hatch: so, in other words, professor hill followed you to the eeoc no more than

judge and mrs. kavanaugh had us in their home for dinner during the holiday season, a tradition that continued for many years. and judge kavanaugh's devotion to training and mentoring female and male leader in the legal profession does not conclude at the end of a clerkship in his chambers. he's provide add vice at every major point in my career since the end of my clerkship more than 11 years ago and also branches out to assist young lawyers far beyond the four corners of his community. he speaks to student associations and regularly teaches courses the students on law school campuses. judge kavanaugh's record of mentoring young lawyers and his practice of hiring law clerks with diverse life experiences demonstrate his commitment to giving back to the legal profession and show that he has an open mind. judge kavanaugh knows the impact that members of the judiciary can have on the legal profession, the state of the law and individuals in the real world. judges take an oath to decide cases according

judge kavanaugh is one of the most distinguished judges. mr. chairman, i think we ought to have this loudmouth removed. we shouldn't have to put up with this kind of stuff. i hope she's not a law student. >> now that we have quiet, i'd like to explain that i advised two years ago that have my hearings i expect the police to do their job and i expected the committee to go on. but if you don't want to continue -- okay, go ahead. >> you are the facts. judge kavanaugh some of the most distinguished judges in the entire country. he has served for over 12 years now and the u.s. court of appeals to the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit is often referredea to as the second highest court in the land because it hears many critically important cases involving agency -- [inaudible] during his term, judge kavanaugh cases.rd over a thousand more than 300 opinions. his opinions span nearly 5000 pages. what is remarkable about judge kavanaugh's judicial record is the step that is quality. judge kavanaugh has written powerful opinions on the separation of power an

>> understand this, judge. i'm fired with another congressman, patrick mchenry on the innovation initiative. i believe in technology and i come from california. but i don't like bias toward conservatives. this is something we have been working on, we have the ceo of twitter who came before us. he admitted he shadow-banned conservatives. judge jeanine: explain to my viewers what you mean by shadow-ban. >> they went through a conservative on twitter, puts some information out. long before they went even know it's not going to all the followers. people don't see it. people aren't seeing it on the twitter feed. what they did to prager university. they banned when they talk about baseball or israel. but the real concern i have today was google. your viewers have to understand, 90% of all searches go through google. when you go through that second page of the information, 95% drop off. they control the information we are seeing on the internet. when you see the video that came forward -- >> i want to show it right no

he has said the judges judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law or make policy. i agree it by the way, as do most of the people we represent. judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench. clearly, brett kavanaugh has the right qualifications and has a judicial philosophy that is very much in the mainstream here .. . just as important to me is the kind of person you want on the supreme court. i have known brett not so much as a legal scholar or a judge or a professor but as a friend, a father, and a husband. he is thoughtful and compassionate. and someone who has a big heart. and the humility to >> the humility to listen. truth this confirmation hearing, i hope the american people will get to know the rick kavanaugh i've had the privilege of knowing. a couple of days after he was announced brett came to my office to discuss his confirmation. he went from our meeting to serve the homeless at his church, a regular occurrence long scheduled, scheduled long before his nomination. i only found out about it because that night someone recognized him and took a photo th

as a judge. there's a lot of discussion about, well, there's not enough material out there. we haven't seen everything. we haven't seen everything that went through the white house when he was the staff secretary for president bush, bush 43, george w. bush. we haven't seen all that. of course that's not the case. there's plenty to be seen. in fact, there's more paperwork available to look at from judge kavanaugh than for the last five supreme court judges put together. if you're looking for paper, you got paper. if you're looking for a judge's position, you have also got that. you've got 300 cases, some of which were appealed to the supreme court. 13 of his almost exact opinions -- and i think some of them were when he was in the minority on the circuit court bench -- became the opinion that the supreme court essentially adopted almost exactly as judge kavanaugh had written it. what we're trying do here is put somebody on the supreme court for a lifetime appointment, and this individual happens t

judge kavanaugh is one of the most distinguished judges -- mr. chairman, i think we ought to have this loudmouth removed. [shouting] >> we should not put up with this kind of stuff. [shouting] >> i hope she's not a law student. >> i -- now that we have quiet, i would like to explain that i advised two years ago that at my hearings i expected the police to do their job, and i expect the committee to go on. but if you don't want to continue -- >> i'm going to continue. >> okay. go ahead. >> so here are the facts. judge kavanaugh is one of the most distinguished judges in the entire country. he has served for over 12 years now in use court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit is often referred to as -- [shouting] >> -- second highest court in the land because it appears may critically important cases -- [shouting] -- involving -- [shouting] during his time on the bench, judge kavanagh has servedd over 1000 cases. he's written more than 300 opinions. [shouting] >> is opinions spanned nearly 5000 pages in length. [shouting] >> what's rema

as an appellate judge. he was incredibly well prepared. he demonstrated a mastery of the record and asked penetrating questions of both sides. he carefully listened to the arguing attorney's answers as well as questions emanating from his more seasoned colleagues. none of this surprised me, but i was impressed by the profound interest in the legal arguments in the context of a e petition for review from a decision of the federal energy regulatory commission, or ferc. at least in my days as a law clerk on the d.c. circuit, ferc cases were not among the most coveted. they were notoriously complex with long administrative records filled with strange acronyms and doctrines unknown in other areas of the law. i feared for my friend that he would be saddled with the e assignment of the ferc case while his more senior colleagues authored opinions in higher profile cases addressing more readily-accessible doctrines. i'm quite sure that judge kavanaugh did not mine. as i've seen in the ensuing 12 years, he approaches

as well as judge kavanaugh. judge kavanaugh asked to be heard to clear his good name speak directly to the american >> and we have her judge kavanaugh's rebuttal. what we have learned is there is no evidence to corroborate doctor ford's allegations. all the people she said were there on the occasion in question said they have no memory or didn't happen. no corroboration. as we all watched judge kavanaugh we saw his righteous indignation. and aimed his fear he not at doctor ford and with this unfair confirmation process despite the embarrassment to me and the united states senate. to see the precious confidentiality to leak that information to the press and thrust her into the national spotlight on - - spotlight under the circumstances is an abuse of power. having made that request once she was in the spotlight we felt w it was very important to trade on - - treat her respectfully and listen to her story. anybody who would listen, i wanted to treat doctor for the same way my mother or my sister or my daughters wo

that is the judge we have before us. he's a judge's judge. many critics argue that justice kavanaugh would play an instrumental role. however, i wonder how one can draw that conclusion given his record of exhaustive and weighty consideration of important legal questions on a court such as the d.c. circuit. i recognize that it's politics dragging these attacks and so do the american people. they know what's at stake here. moreover, judge kavanaugh has reigned in congress when they overstep their grounds. he's focused on the principle that a judge is a servant of the law, not the maker of it. read the words of the statute as written. don't make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the constitution. that is the man who sits before us nominated to be a justice on the highest court of our land. judge kavanaugh has the backing of his former law clerks and law students. there's no dispute he's qualified to serve. i look forward to hearing from the nominee himself when we all get done with our statements. the next few days will pr

and clearly the judge agreed.believed the state psychologist who argued that bill does bhi an uncontrollable to your knowledge violate young women and would do it again if given the opportunity. this 81-year-old man legally blind will be sentenced to state prison and waiting to find out how long he will be put behind bars, julie. >> julie: we will be waiting for that sentence come out any moment now. as soon as the judge finishes. we will be back with you as news warrants. on another fox news alert. senator mitch mcconnell with sharp words for democrats as he looks to push the brett kavanaugh nomination over the finish line. we are talking about the majority leader speaking out ahead of thursday's hearing where both christine blasey ford and judge kavanaugh are both set to testify in separate rooms at separate times. president trump also lashing out at the democrats this morning. >> i think it's horrible what the democrats have done. it's a con game they are playing. they are really con artists. they are trying to

i am approached law judge. as justice kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. in our independent judiciary, the supreme court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the constitution. the supreme court must never, never be viewed as a protestant institution the justices on the supreme court did not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. they do not caucus in separate rooms. if confirmed, to the supreme court, i would be part of a team of 9. committed to deciding cases according to the constitution and laws of the united states. i would always strive to be a team player on the team of 9. throughout my life, i have tried to serve the common good in keeping with my jesuit high school's motto, meant for others. i have spent my career in public service, i have tutored at washington jesuit academy, a rigorous tuition free school for boys for f

judge kavanaugh is one of the most distinguished judges -- mr. chairman, i think we are to have this loudmouth removed. we should not have to put up with this kind of stuff. i hope she is not a law student. now that we have quiet, i would like to explain that i advised two years ago, that in my hearings i expected the police to do their job and i expect the committee to go on. if you do not want to continue -- sen. hatch: i will continue. sen. grassley: go ahead. sen. hatch: judge kavanaugh is one of the most distinguished judges in the country. he has served over 12 years on the court of appeals of the d.c. that is often referred to as the second highest court in the land because it hears many critically important cases involving agency action. ,uring his time on the bench judge kavanaugh has heard over a thousand cases. he has written more than 300 opinions. his opinions spanned nearly 5000 pages in length. what is remarkable about judge kavanaugh's judicial record is not just its length, but it's depth and its quality. judge kavanaugh has been

indefensible judge.ory booker's office was notified that the document he made a big stink about was being classified. cory booker can't even break the rules the right way. his office was notified the classified document was not classified anymore. one other thing. what's hysterical about this, he wants to explores this classified document about racial profiling. it shows kavanaugh supported race neutral policies. berke should be embarrassed. >> you can't win if you don't fight. and i think the senate democrats are putting up a good fight. and they are placing doubts in the mind of people who may be concerned about his -- kamala harris has become a star. judge jeanine: how dummies she to interrupt these hearings. she looked like an obstructionist fool. they know the rules, but they are willing to to obstruct just to make everybody, the republicans look bad. >> i thought kamala harris had a great hearing. particularly when she asked him, name me a law that prohibits men from doing something with their body

a good judge never -- a good judge never bases decisions on his preferred policy preferences. a good judge also has courage, recognizing that we have an independent judiciary to restrain judges, when that government exceeds lawful authority. president andrew jackson said, quote, all the rights secured to the citizens under the constitution are worth nothing. and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous judiciary. end of quote. confirmation hearings for supreme court nominees nominees independent, are a very important opportunity to discuss the appropriate rule of judges. as i see it and i expect many of my colleagues will agree, the role of the judge is to apply the law as written even if the legal result is not one the judge personally likes. justice scalia has often been quoted because he was fond of saying, if a judge always likes the outcome of the cases he decides, he is probably doing something wrong. i don't want judges who always reach a liberal result or conservative result. i want a judge who rules the law the way the law requires. judg

in 97% of the matters, judge kavanaugh heard, he voted with the majority and judge kavanaugh issued dissenting opinions in 2 7/10 of the matters that you heard. i would also like to clarify what the presidential records act requires. our documents process has fully complied with the presidential records act under the federal statute. president bush has the right to request his own records and he has the authority to review the records before the senate receives them, and indeed the archives may not produce them no the committee without giving president bush and his statutory representatives an opportunity to review first. this is what president bush has done in the -- and the national archives do not have a are right to second-guess the records issued to us. the national archives was not cut out of the process as president bush informed the committee, quote, because we have sought, received and followed narrow, and that moons the archivist's views on any documents withheld as personal documents the resulting productions of document nos the committee is essentially the same as if the archivist

we are judges.we don't wear partisan labels and i tried to work well with all my laws -- colleagues. you have to use the last 3%. in fact, two by 7% in which you are actually in the dissent or maybe you are a member of the partial majority. they have to go to the very small number of cases and figure out a way to make it look like you have disagreement with norms and the judiciary. it is important for us to know when people start talking about let's look for patterns, the pattern is you are working with your colleagues on that court in the united way and there seems to be a high level of consensus in the rulings in which you participate. in terms of the decisions your britain, the 307 decisions that you have written, how many of those -- how many of those were majority decisions were majority? >> the vast majority are majority opinions. >> and also some concurrence. again, i don't know that you would have these to six, but i assumed the number of those cases were applied to the supreme court. if the

i expect judge kavanaugh to get a similar vote. somewhere in that same range. >> if that's the case murcowski and collins vote in favor? >> i respect their right to make that announcement themselves. they've been considering the nominee. visiting with him in person. in the end i predict they will be satisfied but i'll leave them up to them to make that announcement. >> cory booker said something far more suggestionive. he said anyone supporting this nomination will be complicit in evil. >> it sounds to me like a presidential campaign in 2020. but i think there will be a contest here for the most ridiculous thing people will say about this nominee. and unfortunately that comment is really in the running to win the prize. we'll see. >> are you suggesting there might be a stage for your colleagues. democrats held a press conference complaining about the lack of documents. the white house argues it's turned over 400,000 documents. the man has a long career in the white house and the court in washington, d.c. are those complaints valid

as well as judge kavanaugh. judge kavanaugh asked to be heard to clear his good name speak directly to the american people. he did so forcefully yesterday. now we have heard doctor ford story and we have her judge kavanaugh's rebuttal. what we have learned is there is no evidence to corroborate doctor ford's allegations. all of the people she said were there on the occasion in question said they have no memory of it where it did not happen. no cooperation. as we watched judge kavanaugh defend his personal integrity we saw his righteous indignation. he choked back his tears. named his fury not at doctor ford, none of us did that. but rather of this unfair confirmation process which frankly is an embarrassment to me and should be an embarrassment to the senate. to take someone who has requested confidentiality and leak that information to the press. to thrust her into the national spotlight under the circumstances i think is an abuse of power. having made that request, when she was in the spotlight we felt like it

a good judge never -- a good judge never bases decisions on his preferred policy preferences. a good judge also has courage, recognizing that we have an independent judiciary to restrain judges when that government exceeds lawful authority. president andrew jackson said, quote, all the right secured to the citizens under the constitution are worth nothing and a mere bubble except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous judiciary, end of quote. confirmation hearings for supreme court nominees are an independent -- are a very important opportunity to discuss appropriate role of judges. as i see it and i expect many of my colleagues will agree, the role of the judge is to apply the law as written even if the legal result is not one the judge personally likes. justice scalia has often been quoted because he was fond of saying, if a judge always likes the outcome of the cases he decides, he is probably doing something wrong. i don't want judges who always reach a liberal result or conservative result. i want a judge who rules the law the way the law requires. judges must

judge. we've heard a lot of discussions about mr. judge. a lot of my colleagues saying, why didn't we hear testimony from mr. judge? well, mr. judge refused to talk to the committee. he submitted a statement, a statement under penalty of perjury, under penalty of felony, but he refused to be interviewed by investigators. it's not complicated to understand why. the public record indicates mr. judge has had a very troubled life. that he's battled with addiction for most of his life. we heard testimony yesterday that he's been near death, that he battles with depression, that he's a cancer survivor. e has also been directly accused of multiple felonies. so when committee investigators asked to interview him he said no. that shouldn't surprise anybody. we had a vote earlier today on subpoenas mr. judge. it's not complicated what would happen if he were subpoenaed. if he came before this committee, any defense lawyer worth his salt would tell mr. judge not to testify. now, i understand politically democratic members of the senate would very much

judge kavanaugh was as engaged if not more so than the other judges. at the end of the day, he did not agree completely with the arguments that we were making. but he wrote a very thoughtful recent opinion, concurring opinion with respect to the concurring opinion with respect to the constitutionality of the consumer finance protection board. he very carefully but with the supreme court has said in the free enterprise fund case and came to a conclusion that was i thought, very persuasive. although it did not completely agree with it. very persuasive and reasonable. >> let me thank each of the witnesses for being here on this panel and i want to echo what senator feinstein said in particular, ms. weintraub. thank you for your powerful inspirational testimony. thank you for being here and being part of this panel. >> thank you. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you so much for being here and for your leadership. i have some questions that i asked yesterday of the judge about voting rights. a reference to data from the brennan center for justice showing that

judges who would dismantle the affordable care act. judges who would reshape our judiciary. now, if that's not judicial activism, i don't know what is. and judge kavanaugh, which are nomination, the president has made it very clear he's following through on his promises, and many of us feel he is. it seems that you may have intrigued him for another reason. your expansive view of executive power an executive immunity. you have taken the unorthodox position that president should not be burdened with a criminal or civil investigation while in office. now we have a president who is declared in the last 24 hours that the department of justice shouldn't prosecute republicans. it's house in wonderland, and i find it -- alice -- that your use in the subject escaped the attention of president trump who seems increasingly fixated on his own ballooninge legal jeopardy. when questioning about these concerns we won't certainly look to your record on the bench, all of us, republicans and democrats agree that we should. indeed, , your 12 years on the d.c. circuit court of appeals will loo

judge jeanine: what is ralph club. >> judge. i want to you explain it.ou stop. what else it, chris. you tell me. what is it. >> it's a cluive people throwing up for overdrinking. judge jeanine: big deal. they talk about flatulence and throwing up. were you always an adult before you allegedly got to be an adult? >> he lied about it. >> here is the difference between me and you. i'm not a liar. when i'm wrong i admit it. admit you have no idea what judge kavanaugh meant when he wrote ralph club in his book. you are just lying because you want to take an innocent man down because your party is evil. they are bad people. you are on the wrong side of the moral arc of history. you should tweet out an apology to everybody watching this show for this disgraceful appearance. judge jeanine: do you think dianne feinstein was right in leaking this things out and lying and then saying, you know what? i don't know, my staff didn't leak it? you didn't ask anyone? no, you didn't leak it. how naive are you? >> i think she should have given this information to the presid

lawnt a judge who rules the the law requires. judges must leave lawmaking to the congress. the elected representatives of the people. judges and justices have lifetime appointments. they can't be voted out of office if they legislate. whereas if congress legislate something that people don't like then you can vote them out of office. that's why they're there to interpret law and not make law. some have a very different view of what a judge's role should be. according to this view judges should decide cases based upon outcomes in order to advance their politics. what the american people don't want their judges to pick sides before they hear a case. they want a judge who rules based upon what the law commands. this is the reason why all supreme court nominees since ginsberg have declined to offer their personal opinions on the correctness of precedent. seeking assurances from a how he will vote in certain cases or how he views certain precedent undermines judicial independence and essentially asks for a promise in exchange for a confirmation vote. it's unfair and unethical. l

judge kavanaugh spoke glowingly of judge garland during his pending nomination stating that "chief judge garland is a brilliant jurorist, thoughtful, he's considerate, collegial, works well with others, he's a good man, great integrity and supremely qualified by the characteristics of experience, temperment, writing ability, scholarly ability to the supreme court." all of this is equally true of judge kavanaugh. i do not think it is fair to hold judge kavanaugh responsible for the fact that judge garland is not a justice today. instead, i would urge this committee to treat him as we expect him to treat litigants that appear before him. on his own merits and with an open mind towards someone whose views may different from our own. our judicial system is not well served by tit for tat politics. at the end of the day, i enthusiastically support judge kavanaugh and i am proud to introduce him because he is unquestionably qualified by his extraordinary intellect, experience, and temperment. he does fit in the mainstream of legal thought. i look forward to the committee over the next few days

that is the judge we have before us. a judges judge.critics argue justice kavanaugh would play the role in reducing precedent but i wonder how one can draw that conclusion given his record of exhaustive consideration of important legal questions such as the d.c. circuit i recognize that his politics are driving these attacks and so to the american people they know what's at stake moreover in his legal opinions judge kavanaugh has demonstrated a willingness to remain in both congress and the executive branch when they overstepped their respective constitutional grounds. judge kavanaugh understands that a judge is a servant of the law. and read the text of the constitution mindful of history and tradition don't make of those new constitutional right don't shy away from the text of the constitution those are judge kavanaugh's words the man who sits before us nominated to be a justice on the highest court of our land the backing of the former law clerks appointed by democrat president and many members of the community to be so closely invol

judge and mrs. kavanaugh had us in their home for dinner during the holiday season, a tradition that continued for many years. and judge kavanaugh's devotion to training and mentoring female and male leader in the legal profession does not conclude at the end of a clerkship in his chambers. he's provide add vice at every major point in my career since the end of my clerkship more than 11 years ago and also branches out to assist young lawyers far beyond the four corners of his community. he speaks to student associations and regularly teaches courses the students on law school campuses. judge kavanaugh's record of mentoring young lawyers and his practice of hiring law clerks with diverse life experiences demonstrate his commitment to giving back to the legal profession and show that he has an open mind. judge kavanaugh knows the impact that members of the judiciary can have on the legal profession, the state of the law and individuals in the real world. judges take an oath to decide cases according

an associate judge of the supreme court. i want to speak very briefly about the circumstances that has caused us to queen these -- convene these hearings. we are here today to hold open hearings on professor anita hill's allegations concerning judge thomas. this committee's handling of her charges has been criticized. professor hill has made two requests to this committee. first, she has asked us to investigate her charges against judge thomas, and, second, she had asked that these charges remain confidential, that they not be made public and not shared with anyone beyond this committee. i believe that we have honored both her requests. some have asked how could you have the u.s. senate vote on judge thomas's nomination and leave senators in the dark about professor hill's charges. to this i answer, how can you expect us to have forced professor hill against her will into the blinding light which you see here today. but i'm deeply sorry that our actions, in this respect have been seen by many across the country as a sign tha

welcome again, judge.before i begin, i would want to give you, judge, an opportunity to introduce your family. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and senator feinstein -- >> push the red button if it's not on. >> will we have opening remarks? >> yes, we will have. >> senator, chairman and senator feinstein and members of the committee. i'm honored to be here today with my family, my wife, ashley, proud west texan, graduate of abilene/cooper high school, now the town manager of our local community where we live, our daughters, margaret and liza. i thank the committee for arranging a day off from school today. my mom and dad, martha and ed kavanaugh, my aunt and uncle, nancy and mark murphy, and my first cousins, rosy and elizabeth murphy. i'm very honored to be here, honored to have my family here. i'm here because of them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we're delighted to have your family here. before i make my opening remarks, i want to set out the ground rules for the hearing. i want everyone to be able to watch t

judge kavanaugh is one of the most distinguished judges in the entire country. he has served for over 12 years now in the u.s. court of appeals to the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit is often referred to -- the second highest court in the land because it adheres many critically important cases involving agency interaction and the separation of powers. during this time on the bench, judge kavanaugh has heard over a thousand cases. he's written more than 300 opinions. his opinions span nearly 5,000 pages in length. but what is remarkable about judge kavanaugh's judicial record is not just its length. but it's depth and it's quality. judge kavanaugh has been a true front leader. he's written powerful opinions on the separation of powers and administrative law. he's shown that he brings a fair amount of questions to criminal law and moment law. on almost every issue of consequence, judge kavanaugh has made a significant contribution to our nation's jurisprudence and he's won respect from both sides of the political spectrum. the committee has received letters from fo

in the more than 12 years judge kavanaugh has been a judge in the d.c. circuit, a reputation for honesty, courtesy and integrity. clerks and colleagues since his praises. he volunteers in the community. he's been an advocate for and mentor to his students. after democrats unleashed the allegations against judge kavanaugh, chairman grassley sent out a dlib rative process to investigate. he has not been, as some claim, a boy, far from it, but rather than working with us, my democratic colleagues chose not to participate in the process. before that, they never asked judge kavanaugh a single question about the allegations. yet, again and again, the refrain has been the same, delay, delay, delay. i can't blame them for that because they are partisan people. i guess they figure that would be to their advantage. it's not. when we heard the serious allegations made by dr. ford, we recognized we needed to hear her testimony. chairman grassley was committed to making sure she had a safe forum in which to tell her story. he tried to make it a forum of her choosing,