they enact a law, the supreme court strikes it down. they enact, the supreme court strikes. what do you do? roosevelt takes a book from the civil war and says, i'll tell you what we'll do. we will add some justices to the supreme court, so that when they get a case, i will have the majority and everyone can rest peacefully. only this time, it did not go down so well in the country. there's a five month to six months struggle that is hard to imagine. , have to think of like nowadays, the clinton impeachment. people were mesmerized, fighting about it in the pta meetings. do we buy into this idea or no? ultimately, the american people reject the idea of controlling the court, but they only do it after the courts switched and signaled it is not going to interfere with the new deal anymore. that brings us into the world i think we live in today. generally speaking, we respect the supreme court and are willing to follow what they say, but only so long as they don't on issue aftery the courtr issue follows public opinion. when the court decides some of the abortion cases, the headl

including the courts.went after judge curiel and sort of the rest of the judicial part of the legal and law enforcement system as a candidate. i think he sees here an opportunity to kind of bring the band back together. right? who knows what will happen to jeff sessions after the midterms. i think all bets are off there. but in the meantime, this is an easy one for the president. >> josh, he's expecting payback. i presume the white house expects that kavanaugh that you now justice kavanaugh will rule their way and be in lock step or else. >> i think on the court it's going to be very interesting if you see it go from a court that swings back and forth with a lot of 5-4 decisions to more 6-3 decisions and seem to be leaning steadily in a conservative direction, the court will be even more viewed as a way of extending partisan power as opposed to a neutral arbiter. just yesterday, elena kagan expressed concern during remarks she gave at princeton saying without that swing vote on the court, whether it was ke

you take aim at what the court calls chevron deference which means courts will defer to the agency's interpretation of the statute as long as the statute is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is a reasonable one. you criticized that approach in the book or at least you asked the courts to recalibrate the way they go about deferring to agencies' interpretations. why don't you explain? >> seems to me pretty obvious that if you have a judiciary and if the judiciary is supposed to make sure that the constitution is being observed, and the separation of powers is being observed and that's the theory on which this whole thing proceeds, then it should be fairly clear that the judiciary should interpret the statutes. how much power the congress gave to the executive branch. so that's a statutory interpretation question. what chevron did was say direct, really, the lower courts, not to do that in effect, to say well, these administrative agencies are experts, they're more expert than we are, and if they interpret their statutory authorities in a certain way, we ought to accept that if

it's held by a district court and the court of appeals. what the supreme court does is mainly, it's a checking process to make sure that the case was properly adjudicated and make sure evidence was admitted that shouldn't have been left out or excluded and should have come in. so the experience i think with these questions of scientific information, i think the experience in the district courts and the court of appeals, they are the front line adjudicators of those questions. it's interesting that we do have in the system one kind of specialized court, the federal circuit that hears all patent appeals. >> i was going to ask you about that. >> but it turns out that we, but it doesn't end with the specialized court. the supreme court reduce decisions of the federal circuit, and we have taken a fair number of cases from the circuit so there is a generalist court making the last judgment in the case. and if there was an expectation that the federal circuit would review not only the regional courts of appeals, handling patent cases, that the su

court. after his clerkships he practiced commercial and appellate litigation for several years at sidly austin in washington, d.c. and served as a special counsel for the supreme court nominations process for senator cornyn. before earning his law degree, professor graduated summa cum laude from the university of notre dame and he will be serving as a visiting professor at harvard law school. next we'll hear from judge dearmud o'scannlain. he was appointed ninth circuit judge by president reagan in 1986 and assumed senior status on december 21st of 2016. his chambererize in the pioneer courthouse in portland and as a judge on the ninth circuit, he has participated in over 6,000 federal cases and has written hundreds of published opinions on a broad range of subjects including constitutional law, international law, and criminal law. before his appointment to the federal bench, judge o'scannlain was primarily involved in private law practice and between 1969 and 1974, he served as the deputy a

justice of the supreme court.ices justice kennedy became one of the most consequentialjustices in american history. i served as justice kennedy's law clerk in 1993. to me, justice kennedy is a mentor, a friend, and the hero. on the supreme court, he was a model of stability and collegiality. he fiercely defended the independence of thejudiciary, fiercely defended the independence of the judiciary, and zealously guarded the individual liberties secured by the constitution. justice kennedy established a legacy of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. i will always be humbled and proud to sit injustice kennedy's seat on the supreme court. applause i thank the members of the united states senate, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, for his leadership and steady resolve. i thankjudiciary leadership and steady resolve. i thank judiciary committee chairman chuck grassley for his wisdom and fairness and i give special thanks to susan collins, john kyle and lindsey graham. they are a credit to the country and the se

supreme court. we'll bring you the entire ceremony as you look there at all of those assembled in the east room of the white house. all of this live as it happens. it is an event 91 long days in the making. >> tonight it is my honor and privilege to announce that i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. [applause] lou: the radical democrats immediately attacked the president's nominee with the most heinous charges, most fraudulent charges by even the standards of the radical left in their search and destroy politics of personal destruction. their leader, crying chuck schumer vowed to stop kavanaugh to matter what. >> i will oppose him with everything i've got. lou: and he did. but the radical democrats weren't satisfied to simply oppose kavanaugh. instead they along with their allies and the left wing national media engaged in a smear campaign the likes of which the nation has never before seen. kavanaugh, the highly qualified jurist, husband, father of two daughters

he served the court for so long and was a senior member of the court at the time he retired. he was an extraordinarily consequential justice in terms of its impact on the law, but he was first and foremost an incredibly kind and decent man to all of his colleagues, in particular helped me in my responsibilities as chief justice, as someone who had been there for a long time. extremely thoughtful, careful, considerate. there's something he did in the treatment that's coming out by me in the "harvard law review" that i set forth. he compiled a list of reading that he thought was essential. as it was for his grandchildren as they were growing up, for people to read to understand the concept of liberty. they goes all the way from ancient greek readings up to the movie legally blonde. [laughing] it works. believe me it works where he has it. i'd really recommend people to get a real sense of his sins, the understanding of the constitution of liberty and the scope of his learning to get a a hold of the list. i don't when the log review will have it out but i'm sure you can get onli

for the state court it depends on the case. the lower court opinion stands.if the lower court said that this is cannot let stand the statute that was passed in the matter is over. but remember in that case the legislature can still continue to wrestle with that. the problem with row is once they declare that. the loser in that battle the pro-life movement as it came to be called. will no longer go to state legislatures or congress. it's one of the practical problems. when something is a political dispute both sides can rest assured that tomorrow is a different day. that venting of steam with the issue of becoming overheated. when they declare the debate over. it helps lead to what we saw with the republican party. it's the worst thing that could ever have happened to the democratic party. that's not necessarily an argument. and many people have argued that the best thing that can happen to the democratic party is it been reversed. it's not a reason to reverse it. by the way, i don't think a court. we will cut back on it. but we will not reverse it. and i thin

he appointed two justices to the supreme court, 26 judges to the federal court of appeals and 41 to thetrict courts and 130 vacanci vacancies waiting to be filled. so a tree falls on your brand new car and totals it. and as if that wasn't bad enough, now your insurance won't replace it outright because of depreciation. if your insurance won't replace your car, what good is it? you'd be better off just taking your money and throwing it right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with new car replacement, if your brand new car gets totaled, liberty mutual will pay the entire value plus depreciation. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ where people go to learn about their medicare options before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why...medicare part b doesn't pay for everything. this part is up to you. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what

there's all sorts of chants, whose court our court. whose streets our streets. etc., etc. now it is up to the police, are they going to tell people either you leave or you get arrested or not. so far at least from what we can see is they don't have the numbers of police officers out here to clear the steps even if they wanted to. when the capitol police were prepared before the vote to confirm now justice kavanugh, they had dozens if not hundreds of capitol police officers out here, massive reinforcements and clearly had a plan. they basically said to the protesters look you can either go to the left and get arrested, you can go to the right and leave. it doesn't seem like they have those numbers of police officers here to make that call with these protesters. and i can't really see any reinforcements arriving chris. now comes the question are they willing to sort of allow these folks to continue to chant who know that brett kavanugh is inside getting ready to be sworn in or do they decide that they are going to actually bring out reinforcements and clear the st

back is court packing. do you have any reflections on that and how we could de-escalate the partisanship and the pluralization of the nominations process? >> well, for one thing, i think we have to remember that judges wear black robes for a reason. they wear them because their identity is meaningless in the work that they do. we're supposed to basically judge a judge's work by its rigor and its coherence. and i think the more people focus on the work product of the court, the work product of each justice, the more likely we are to maintain that institution's legitimacy. so people should judge brett kavanaugh's work, for example, by virtue of the opinions he writes and whether they're coherent and rigorous and fair and objective. >> is there any consideration or thought that term limits might help, even if it's a long term limit -- a 15-year term limit or a 20-year term limit, a 10-year term limit -- that that might help take the hot air out of this polarized nominations process? >> it's a tough game to fig

court for a moment. it's important not to forget about the lower courts. president reagan nominated eight judges to the d.c. circuit. we should all ask god's blessing for president trump to get that many nominations. here's the list. report bork. about anyone about nntonin scalia. ken starr. jim buckley. steven williams. doug ginsburg. david santel. conservative all-stars, every one. the longest time any of them had to wait between nomination and confirmation was four months. majority, in fact, were confirmed in less than two months. what about their confirmation votes? well, this will surprise you. seven of the eight were confirmed either by voice vote or unanimous consent. only judge buckley had a roll call vote and his vote was 84-11. that means a lot of president reagan's eight d.c. circuit nominees, only one received any no votes. only one, can you imagine that happening today? never. let's turn back now to the supreme court. as i discussed earlier, in 1986, justice scalia was confirmed 98-0. and chief justice rehnquist was confirmed 65-33. even rehnq

the courts guard our rights and the senate guards our courts.y is such an important day. that is why the vote we take this afternoon, a vote to confirm a new associate justice of these "of the united states, represents one of the most consequential decisions a senator ever makes. the members of this body are duty bound to confirm justices of this print court who are men and women as the highest character and the most superlative qualifications. —— of the supreme court. that is just the sort of nominee who stands before us today. 12 weeks ago, the president nominated the jurist whose been described by legal peers of all political stripes as a superstar, a serious scholar and who is legendary for his preparation and possesses the qualifications of temperament and thejudicial the qualifications of temperament and the judicial philosophy to be an excellent associate justice. the president nominated a brilliant student of the law, those who taught and new league nominee at yale say it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as judg

supremes court judge the eyes are fifty. the nays are forty eight vice president mike pence reading out the tight results of a divisive senate vote both republicans and democrats believe the controversy surrounding kavanagh's appointment has fired up their base ahead of crucial midterm elections. also on the program a prominent saudi journalist enters his country's consulate in turkey and then disappears authorities believe jamal khashoggi who has strongly criticized his country's leadership may have been killed we'll go live to istanbul for the latest . time brazilians go to the polls today in a presidential election plagued by division and control machine clued in the public stabbing of one of the front runners. hello and welcome my name is christopher spring good to have you with us president trump is celebrating a major domestic victory after the republican controlled senate now only voted to confirm his nominee brett kavanaugh as a supreme court justice the move comes after weeks of parties and. in fighting over accusat

court's defer tn silent on an issue. in a 2017 speech at notre dame, honoring justice scalia judge kavanaugh said the shev ron if encourage said aggressiveness on a large scale. agencies can stretch the meaning of stiechts enacted by congress to accommodate their preferred policy outcomes. i saw this firsthand in the white house and i see it now as a judge. judge kavanaugh proposed solution to the shev ron is to determine the best reading of the statutes courts would no longer defear if agencies interpretation of statutes. such an interpretation would put environmental public health and consumer protection interests at grave risk. judge kavanaugh would have struck down the consumer financial protection bureau as unconstitutional. when he wrote the majority opinion in a panel decision. in an blocked panel in the dc circuit they vacated that and upholding the constitution at of the dock frank reforms including the consumer protection financial bureau. but that's whatt at-risk with judge kavanaugh. those types of decision-m

that tells you a lot about the court and what the court will try to do. it tells you no you that kavanaugh is a justice, he will try to get back to the judge who has written 300 opinions and distance himself away from the other side. >> it sounds like they were sort of bringing out their arms to say you are one of us, and despite the division happening outside, they're saying we are in and out united supreme court. >> it also means maybe there's no better way of a chance to get a vote than to be welcoming. >> they have to work together. >> they know there may be issues where they could make a 4-4, 6-4, you know, 7-2 if they don't -- if he welcome him and in a sense they say can we play ball on some issues? >> i got to hit a quick paw. we're going to continue our conversation. sotomayor also referenced neil gorsuch and something they've been working on to find common ground. we're watching the live pictures, where brett kavanaugh was sworn in as the new associate justice on the highest court in the land. >>> and we're live in topeka, kansas. this crowd wan

a first in the history of the supreme court.applause} >> tonight, i think -- thank all of my friends worried for my high school days, college, law school, the bush white house. including president george w. bush. from the judiciary teachings, coaching, playing sports. the vibrant, loyal, and tightknit community in the d.c. area. and so many others. throughout america. cherish your friends, look out for your friends. love your friends. i love all of my friends. my mom martha and my dad ed are here or it -- are here. one of the earliest women prosecutors. my dad taught me work ethic. they've given me a lifetime of love and i am grateful for that. [applause] my daughters, margaret and liza are smart, strong, awesome girls. they are looking forward to the upcoming basketball season. their teachers for giving them the day off to mars they can come watch two cases being argued at the supreme court. so they can come watch two cases been argued at the supreme court. graduate ofs a abilene cooper public high school. she is a dedicated to

courts. after the most recent survey, it released a recommendation that congress should authorize in their view 57 new judgeships and that eight temporary district judgeships should be converted into permanent judgeships. five of the requested new judgeships are circuit judges and all of those would be on the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit. as well as 52 of the requested new judgeships being district seats. i want to recognize the hard work of the judicial conference and the administrative office of the courts and to thank them for their willingness to submit written testimony to this hearing today. of course, congress has a duty to examine these recommendations and to determine whether authorizing new judgeships is in fact the best way to ensure the efficient administration of justice. our chairman chuck grassley of my neighboring state of iowa has a long record of oversight on this topic and has been a passionate advocate for exploring alternative means of handling expa

not the supreme court. you send somebody up to the supreme court who fibs, that individual is there forever. thus maybe our standard should be a little bit higher. third, i want to talk about judge kavanaugh's disposition in that hearing. and some of the things that he said about how the allegations came forward. i talked about this on the senate floor i think now to days ago. so i won't repeat it all. but his belief that dr. ford's allegations or miss ramirez's allegations came forward as part of some vast conspiracy led by progressive groups and democratic senators on behalf of hillary and bill clinton is delusional. i understand that -- i understand that politics in this town is rough. we've all been subject to character attacks we think are unfair. but that doesn't mean that there are these vast came boles of people on the left and right wing spinning tales on a daily basis about each other. what we know is dr. ford brought this forward to her member of congress before brett kavanaugh was even the nomin

a much larger court would make the supreme court more comparably sized to circuit courts.hose regional circuit courts are comprised of anywhere from 6 to 29 judges. not all judges sit on all cases and in most cases, decided by smaller panels of three. the larger size of the circuits yields advantages. it reduces the influence of a .ingle swing voter like kennedy there is a variance in the panels, which are randomly drawn , even on supposedly liberal circuits, cases are sometimes heard and decided by panels of three conservatives. it prevents excessive entrenchment of say a 5-4 majority. the supreme court doesn't need nine justices, it needs 27. stephen in kentucky. independent line, hi. caller: good morning. host: good morning, you are on. caller: thank you. i don't feel the supreme court because iterm limited think that would interfere with the overall plan of how a maintained.ld be we use a political process to select people to serve in what is supposed to be an institution that is above political politics appointmenttime gives the opportunity for people who are politica

the courts guard our rights, and the senate guards our courts that, mr. president, is why today is such an important day. that is why the vote we take this afternoon, a vote to confirm a new associate justice of the supreme court of the united states, represents one of the most consequential decisions a senator ever makes. the members of this body are duty bound to make sure we confirm justices of the supreme court who are men and women of the highest character and the most superlative qualifications. so fortunately that is just the sort of nominee who stands before us today. 12 weeks ago the president nominated the jurist who's been described by legal peers of all political stripes as a super star, a serious scholar, and who is legendary for his preparation and possesses the temperament and judicial philosophy to be an excellent associate justice. the president nominated a brilliant student of the law. those who taught and knew the nominee at yale say, quote, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as judge kavanaugh. they describe

other presidents have packed the court. grant, roosevelt tried to pack the court. i do think it is unfortunate part about politics when we spend more time on the supreme court and we care more about the supreme court than actually voting. ron: and we have candidates running this fall who are saying openly that one of the platforms they are running on is expanding the supreme court to 11 members. that is actually an issue for in some of the races in the senate and house. jesse, you are one of the very few people who i spent -- who cover the supreme court, the congas, and the white house. they are a small club, what strikes you about having covered all those institutions about this competition about the supremacy that always seems to isn't goal, but it necessarily the each france wants to have the power. sometimes they want one of the other -- the each branch wants to have the power. e: one of the things you have to deal with as a journalist and you have to deal with the theory of how government should work and the reality of how government does work. and one of the

the courts guard our rights. and the senate guards our courts. that, mr. president, is why today is such an important day. that is why the vote we take this afternoon, a vote to confirm a new associate justice of the supreme court of the united states represents one of the most kons cons -- consequential decisions a senator ever makes. the members of this body are duty-bound to ensure that we confirm justices of the supreme court who are men and women of the highest character and the most superlative qualifications. so fortunately, that is just the sort of nominee who stands before us today. 12 weeks ago, the president nominated the jurist that has been described by legal peers of all political scrapes as a superstar. a serious scholar. and who is legendary for his preparation. and possesses the qualifications, the temperament, and the judicial philosophy to be an excellent associate justice. the president nominated a brilliant student of the law. those who taught and knew the nominee at yale say, quote, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials

history of the supreme court.plause] justice kavanaugh: tonight, i thank all of my friends. so many amazing and fearless friends, from my high school days, college, law school, clerking, the bush white house, including president george w. bush. [applause] justice kavanaugh: from the judiciary teaching, coaching, playing sports, the vibrant, loyal, tight-knit catholic community here in the d.c. area and so many others. ashley and i are grateful for their prayers and the prayers of the thousands and thousands of people we have heard from throughout america. when i give advice to young people or speak to students, i tell them, cherish your friends, look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. i love all of my friends. [applause] justice kavanaugh: i thank my family. my mom and dad are here. i am there only -- their only child. my dad taught me his work ethic. they have given me a lifetime of love and i am forever grateful to them. [applause] justice kavanaugh: my daughters, margaret and liza, a

>> i was never in a court except traffic court when i was invited to the court at age 40. >> can you tell us briefly about how the first opportunity to sit on the bench arose? we know that you were on the faculty at harvard and you decided to switch gears. when did the opportunity to arise to first sit on the bench? >> after i got tenure at harvard and work for the department of justice and then at the white house and then back to the department. when i had been there for about a year the second time, i was asked if i was interested in being up for a delegate to be appointed to the d.c. circuit. and i had never thought about being a judge. never. so, in fact, things i taught at harvard did not involve litigation. they were subjects of regulation. they were all these agencies making laws. so i taught courses on labor laws, i created a course in regulation of electronic communications, which was then broadcasting but became cable. so i just wasn't court oriented. i said i didn't think about it. i took a week and came back and said i'm going overseas for the government. so count me out.

in the warren court,specially in the early years, what rights was the warren court making up? aich cases? >> well, to give yreat etample, the miranda warning -- okay? -- was comy made up by the court. it's nowhere to be found. and, you know, there were otr aspects to the right of privacy that were largely created and could not be found in any particular part of the institution. but i would say ththe area of civil rights and race, those are areas where i think you n square a number of the court's decisions with the 14 amendment. so it's complicated. the left likes to caricature objections to judicial activism by saying that we don't like any of the results from the warren court, and that's not actually true. e right. well, let's think about issues that ming down the pike that we know that this court is likely tons er. how would affirmative action be settled? >> well, that's a case that e court is likely to hear over the next coue of years, and i think that, for the most part, originalists look to the constitution as being a colorblind document. >> how aut religious freedom? >>

court, traffic court and so on. the federal courts have very limited jurisdiction. they can hear only cases that are brought in diversity, in other words all the plaintiffs are in different states. there is no overlap. they are all -- they are based on federal law. i'm going to leave this part of the talk and go on to some of the problems we are facing in a moment. the constitution is ratified by the states and came into effect years ago. the first 10 was the bill of rights. that was all ratified in 1791. it has only been 17 times since the founding period. it has been altered by the supreme court's interpretation of its various clauses. i think the greatest question has to be over the court is this, should the court interpret the words of the constitution as they were used at the time of the framing or is it legitimate for the court to review those words with a different meeting, one that would not be recognized for the -- by the framers. here is what some scholars and judges have said on the object. we don't have

if chevron applies, a court step one, whether congress directly addresses the precise issue for the court. using traditional tools of statutory construction. it must effectuate congressional intent, but if the court is solemn with ambiguous with a specific issue the court proceeds to chevron step 2. refers to the agency reasonable interpretation of the statute. this is just common sense. even the late conservative justice anthony scalia defended the chevron doctrine as an important role of principle. as the leadership conference on civil and human rights stated, regulations addressing a wide array of sifrl and human rights issues, including environmental protection, immigration policy, health care protection, education laws, and workplace safety, and consumer protection. a justice kavanaugh will put all of those protections at risk. judge kavanaugh's performance at his hearing and answers to the questions on the record did not provide me additional comfort on the nomination. indeed, justice kavanaugh's testimony and legal career has a disturbing pattern. i believe he would be a justice wi

supreme court. i want to go to miguel marquez at the supreme court.e latest where you are? >> reporter: they moved off the stairs and away from the doors of the supreme court. i want to show you some of what's happening here. they moved in with the barricades here and we have police officers from the u.s. capital across the street and from the supreme court who have come down. they moved successfully everybody off of the stairs. there were a few arrests it looks like at the top of the stairs where people would not move and there was even one protest who would climb on top of the women's statue. the contemplation of justice that got the crowd going again and police were able to get that protester off and i want to show you, in front of the supreme court. to show you how people are sort of waiting to see what happens. they know that brett kavanaugh is in there, he's about to be sworn in. the point of all of this, they say, is to have him hear them. he may have been confirmed. he may be sworn in, but they're not going to forget this. there was not one pe

chief justice, may it please the court. it undisputed premaster now sits on death row unable to fully orient the time and place. as a result of several strokes he suffers from acute vascular dementia which has left his cognitive abilities greatly diminished. he now has intellectual functioning and the borderline range but the memory scores 68 and the severe disabilities have rendered him bewildered and confused most of the time. mr. stephenson. >> a question for both sides but i'm having trouble with a firm grasp of exactly what issues are presented. tell me if i've got this right. there are two. the first one i went to a news to someone who doesn't remember the details of their crime, can he satisfy simply on that basis? he knows that capital punishment is getting us it's going to happen. he just doesn't remember what he did. the second one is whether or not vascular dementia can be a basis for a claim. in other words, he meets the standard but it's not caused by insanity. it's caused a dementia. am i right that those are

in the early years of powers, we also hear from supreme court the supreme court historical court chamber. i would like to express gratitude to justice clarence thomas. he has been wonderfully generous in giving his time to the society when we've called on him.

of the supreme court. (applause). tonight i thank all my friends, from my high school taste, college, law school, when i was clerk, the white house, including president george w. bush. from the judiciary teaching, coaching sports, the vibrant loyal, and tight-knit catholic community near the d.c. area and so many others. ashley and i are grateful for their prayers and from the thousands and thousands of people we have heard from throughout america. when i give advice to young people or speak to students, i tell them, cherish your friends look out for your friends, lift up your friends, love your friends. i love all my friends. (applause). i thank my family, my mom martha and my dad are here. i'm their only child. mom was one of maryland's earliest women prosecutors and trial judges. my dad taught me his work ethic and love of sport and has given me a lifetime of love and i'm forever grateful to them. my daughters margaret and liza are smart, strong, awesome girls. they are in the middle of fall lacrosse an

and so, when the court was presented with that same evidence, he said this court, the supreme court has already said -- justice kagan: well, is there ever a place where the court makes clear that it understands that insanity is not a sine qua non, that dementia could do the trick in satisfying the ford/panetti standard? is there ever a place where the court says, even though, you know, i understand that i'm not necessarily looking for delusions or schizophrenia or insanity and all the -- the ways that we -- that we saw it in ford and panetti, that if i find somebody who's experiencing the kind of dementia that would prevent him from having a rational understanding of the crime and punishment, that that's enough? is there ever a place where the court makes clear that it knows that? govan: well, yes, several parts, your honor. on page 3 and 4 of the court's order, the 2016 order, it set out the panetti standard in full. on page 10 of the court's order -- justice kagan: but i don't think that that does it. i mean, you can set out the panetti standard. the question is whether you understand

the due process rights of parties before the court must be protected to ensure the integrity of our courts and the fundamental fairness of the process. for that reason, prominent scholars and legal organizations across the country have formally spoken up in support of an independent immigration court. from the american bar association to the federal bar association to the national association of women's judges and the american immigration lawyers association, just to name a few. all stand with the national association of immigration judges in calling for a truly independent immigration court established outside the department of justice and divorced from all political influences. thank you for listening to my remarks, and the president can maybe raise a few questions. >> absolutely. if you'd like to stay at the podium to take questions. our colleague over here is going to be passing the microphone around. again, when i call on you and you get the mic, please do identify yourself and your news organization. so you just called for immigration courts and immigration judges to be removed from

that court was the one that became greatly discredited, the so-called lochner court. after douglas was appointed, it came into a different era, but every time, and there's only been a few you've had that kind of rock solid five-person majority, it's been bad for the court. you don't want that kind of hegemony. you want them to talk to each other, bargain, reason and come to some kind of results that reflect something of the spirit of the country. there's a real risk when it gets out of step. >> all right. thank you all. i appreciate your time. judge brett kavanaugh all but certain to be confirmed. one of his yale classmates is speaking out tonight, saying he shouldn't get the a seat on the supreme court. charmin ultra soft! it's softer than ever. charmin ultra soft is softer than ever so it's harder to resist. okay, this is getting a little weird enjoy the go with charmin >>> the stage is set, the senate is voting in a matter of hours. all but certain to elevate judge brett kavanaugh to the supreme court. the country is still bitterly divided tonight. joining me on th

lower courts. this has been their big issue. and that's what they have pressed upon. and i was really interested in what she said about the -- >> hold on a minute. he's just tweeted. joe manchin. i think we have it. we'll put it up on the screen. there it is. i will vote to support supreme court nominee, judge brett kavanaugh. very significant moment. that means, ariane, there will be 51 united states senators, assuming they all show up, who will vote in favor. he will be confirmed. he will be a supreme court justice, as i often say, not for four years, or eight years, but maybe 30 or 35 years. he's only 53 years old. this is a lifetime appointment. >> absolutely. and if -- if he's on the court for -- as long as -- old as ruth bader ginsburg is now, that's 2050. we have to think about this titanic shift. that's what started this up. anthony kennedy, so important on those hot-button issues, abortion, lgbt rights, affirmative action. that is all going to make this court take a hard right turn. and sh

i no longer any respect for the supreme court. i think any cases that are taken to the supreme court, none of them -- none of them will be identified to be in the affirmative. everything is going to be negative. now the democrats did a wonderful job in trying to let them know who and what we were going to put on the supreme court, but the people were more to want to believe what the republicans wanted to do. the republicans don't stand for women and they don't stand for democracy. .. .. until to end and she decided to vote no against the judge. they will both appear on 60 minutes, duane in pair a kansas, a republican, hi dwrien, gj. >> what's your reaction here? >> okay, first off, i have three daughters, two of them were raped at a concert: those two girls both prosecuted they're attackingers, they remember everything that happened that day. even though they had a little bit to drink. but, to say that ford had forgotten everything is ridiculous. she may have been raped, but it wasn't kavanaugh. two. the supreme court is not elect

so if you are a can or could have seen as a federal court judge, district court or appellate court or state supreme court justice where we've had some members of the supreme court have their start. if you're not on the list of 25 come if you are one of the roots of judges appointed you need not apply because you don't have a chance of getting on the supreme court because you are not on that list of 25. i think we can reach into the administration could an code ans reach further than just a list of 25 that represent a very narrow view justice and jurisprudence and a troubling view of the rights of working men and women just by way of example. on the district of colombia, judge kavanaugh has dissented from his colleagues in cases involving workers rights, discrimination and retaliation, going out of his way to argue the interest of corporations should override interest of individual workers. i serve on the special committee and happened to be serving as a ranking member of the congress along with chairman susan collins and i'm especially astounded at some of judge kavanaugh's opinions o

how many lives destroyed before the court to come in? the court balances this. this is a terrible idea it has the unprincipled component that we strive to make the decision. >> ultimately they have to be entirely discretionary and which cases to take you want to argue that real politics has no role? . >> no. fine but you are arguing something i agree with with the political consequences of what it does and therefore if the case should not be decided you are denying review because it takes four votes. but they had to decide. >> it is easy enough to dismiss these. . >> but then to get rid of these cases. and to ruin the institution that manipulates doctrine. >> i think they would say legitimately. >> so let's use the argument that tactically they jump too soon and the question was asked of her but she did say that result of roe was correct she did not say they should not decide the issue but they should have decided it as the equality issue the way they decided brown. and to have equality for women inevitably. >> i acknowledge in the book the equal protection argu

i think he will be credit to the supreme court.r i'm right or wrong about that, time will tell. but what -- what gives me a feeling of saddens as we close instead of joy is that that the american tradition is supposed to be we have these -- knocked down, drag-out fights and we arrive at a decision and rally around and we come together and as we heard snatches of some of the speeches on -- in the senate and karl rove summarized a couple of them, i don't see what the point is at this point of tearing down the institution and that i think is exactly what is happening in speeches which are now taking shots at kavanaugh at a point where it's already clear he's going to be on the court, it's already clear that we've had this battle and it's time to be moving on. i think if you really care about the supreme court as an institution i do not see the sense of tearing down. i particularly don't see it right this minute. bill: thank you andy mccarthy, on the floor chuck grassley, senator from iowa, chair of judiciary committee, final confirmat

in addition to texas versus us for those cases pending in lower courts likely to go to the supreme court in the upcoming terms those cases willtl directly impact health care for millions of healthcare for families in each of these cases there is a question of the affordable care act is that we can enforce in court with critical issues such as the scope of healthcare coverage for nursing mother mothers, false advertising and if employers are required to provide health coverage to employees given judge kavanaugh's statements to the affordable care act i feel a justice kavanaugh would further restrict access to healthcarerd in particular regards to women's healthcare including birth control. and planned parenthood versus kc the supreme court se firmly established the constitutional right to privacy to protect women from undue burden some interference trying to decide to terminate her pregnancy this is known as the undue burden standard that has the purpose or effect of a substantial obstacle seeking in abortion on a nonviable penis long - - fetus. and in 2017 with that ongoing effort with a

they're groomed through the state courts. the state courts have issues coming up.ues of gun rights and immigration. those type of things come up and the court watches those. then the court determines which cases they actually want to hear. they'll be able to decide and pick and choose which cases they actually want to tackle and which issues they want to tackle. so you can, if you are partisan, have a political agenda on the court because you can vote to take certain cases and hear certain cases if you have a political motivation to do so. in the years past, we haven't seen that political motivation come forward. i think that's going to change. we're going to see a much more conservative motivation in taking certain cases. >> to your point, a recent article topped democratic -- are talking about impeachment of brett kavanaugh. multiple federal judges 'em peached by the house. no supreme court justice has been removed. what can you tell us about the -- justice kavanaugh goes through impeachment proceedings? >> it's not likely. what would have been most likely is the

, two new supreme court justices, 26 circuit court judges. there are more that will be done at the circuit and district court level by the end of the year. it's the most important thing wire doing with a positive impact on the country. chris: you were talking about the mob and the fact that they didn't win. there was quite some extraordinary scenes of protesters and we all value the first amendment and the right of people to express their views but as you were coming through the airport, the beginning of the week, you were surrounded by protesters. sometimes they were being members of congress, they were trying to talk to repor reporte, they were trying to shout them down. they came to your house, other people's houses. are you worried at all about the potential not for fair statement of grievances but this could become a security risk. >> well, look, in retrospect i'm glad they did it. what it's done, it's fired up our own base going into the election a month from now. nothing turns republicans of all stripes, whether bush republicans or tru

court opinions. as liberal law professor amir wrote in "the new york times," quote, good appellate judges faithfully follow the supreme court. great ones influence and help steer it. several of judge kavanaugh's most important ideas and arguments have found their way into supreme court opinions. end of professor amar's quote. judge kavanaugh will not only bring his keen intellect and deep knowledge of the law to the supreme court, he will bring some other very important judicial characteristics as well. first among these is a proper understanding of the role of a judge in our constitutional system. he knows that a judge should interpret and apply law as written, not how he wishes it were written, because, as we all know, it's congress' job to write the laws, not judges. he has explained in numerous cases that the fundamental goal of the separation of powers under our constitutional system is the protection of individual liberty. he has interpreted the constitution according to text, history, and trad

they had to get their guy kavanaugh on the court. he's going on the court.going to be calm and happy. and they're going to go back to watching football and there's no big deal. there might be a good fight on the mma. >> i completely disagree. >> those guys will say, we've got to vote for trump! and that's the difference here. it's a different dynamic. >> there's one person. i think this is totally being misread and overplayed by the democrats. the fact of the matter is, if the election is only 31 days away or so, and this is going to be portrayed, i think correctly by republicans that this good man was treated unfairly. and let me finish this way. i think women have sons, they have husbands. and they have boyfriends. and i think this is going to be just as senator collins said, and just as senator fisher said, and just as senator ernst said. and these are women, and these are women that voted for mr. kavanaugh. is going to say, this is about due process and fairness. and the idea that -- >> due process. that's not what they did. >> you know what, there is no

states supreme court. >> on this vote, the ayes are 50, the nays are 48. the nomination of brett m. kavanaugh of maryland to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states is confirme confirmed. >> you think elections don't matter, keep that picture of mike pence there at the senate president's desk there. deep in your mind. it does matter. this all happening by the way just ahead of what will be a big victory lap for president trump tonight as he heads to a rally out in topeka, kansas tonight. let's bring in garrett haake up on the hill on capitol hill. give us a sense, if you will, you've been out there with people. we're here in a studio. what's the smell of the crowd? it seems to me they're not quitting. >> reporter: no, chris, they're not quitting. but there is a sense of at least a temporary defeat here among the folks i've talked to both democratic lawmaker who's thought perhaps in the last week long extension they might have found a way 0 derail the nomination and the protesters