circuit nominations combined.this recitation of president bush's circuit nominees leaves out an important name, mcgill estrada. that's because estrada was never confirmed. he withdrew his nomination after two years and four months in limbo after senate democrats filibustered his nomination seven times for the first time. notice i i just use the f4, filibuster, which is just as bad as the other f word. [laughing] when they use it. important when we use it. we talk about the extraordinary delays that arose during the george w. bush years. the root cause was senate democrats unprecedented use of the filibuster in judicial nominations. this was a new front in the confirmation wars. it may sound strange today but until the early 2000 judicial filibusters simply did not happen at least not from lower court nominees. prior to the georgia w. bush administration, there had never been a successful filibuster of a lower court nominee, and there had never been a six successful filibuster any nominee who it clear majority supp

his nomination seven times. for the first time, by the way. you'll notice i just used the "f" word, filibuster. which is just as bad as the other "f" word. [ laughter ] when they use it. very important when we use it. [ laughter ] we talk about the extraordinary delays that arose during the george w. bush years. the root cause was senate democrats' unprecedented use of the filibuster. in judicial nominations. this was a new front in the confirmation wars. it may sound strange today, but until the early 2000s, judicial filibusters simply did not happen, at least not for lower court nominees. prior to the george w. bush administration, there had never been a successful filibuster of a lower court nominee, and there had never been a successful f l filibuster of any judicial nominee who had clear majority support. that changed during the bush years and it really precipitated the decline of the judicial confirmation process. all of my work, or excuse me, all of the work my republican colleagues and i had done during

even before he was nominated to say he would oppose the nomination no matter who he or she would have been or nominee to the supreme court other members of the senate the democrat minority leader said he would oppose the nomination with everything he had it used to be we could just disregard language like this as rhetoric. but not anymore. w now we know what democrats had in mind from the very start to see the smear campaign from the very beginning. so for the people at home in wyoming we didn't think anything is to get any lower in washington dc until they saw this. democrats have done everything under the sun to delay judge kavanaugh's nomination and to tarnish his reputation. he began with miss representing his judicial record but that didid not work. then they unfairly complained they didn't have enough documents by judge kavanaugh. when that didn't work they shifted to surprise attacks on his character. the only thing they have accomplished is to set a new low for how democrats treat people in washington dc. the way we do things in the senate to be fairly and fully investigate no

he opposes the kavanaugh nomination. caller: good morning. i oppose the nomination. i think this decision is going to leave a stain on our politics. mpian just a tru veneer that we have now transferred to the courts. i think kavanaugh has demonstrated he is unfit to be a supreme court jurist. just look at the facts. a prior spring court jurist had to say about this nominee. look at what the aba has said. they are reviewing his assessment based on his testimony over the past couple weeks where it is clear is a highly partisan individual and temperament to be a supreme court justice. i was disappointed with senator collins. she misrepresented this whole event. the evidence from dr. ford was not adequately reviewed. they selected specific individuals that they wanted to evaluate. moreover, this idea of no evidence is such a travesty for by person that is the demise crimes violence. the demand for corroborating evidence is illogical because these episodes happen where there is no corroborating evidence. there is rarely another witness. there is rarely physical evidence.

you cannot have guilty until nominated or innocent until nominated as the standard for the country. we cannot let this go forward that way. some relationships here and important ones to me and others are going to take a little while to restore, but we'll have to restore them. there aren't enough of us to walk away from each other and say we cannot possibly move forward working with you. i intend to continue to work with my colleagues, but i also intend to continue to stand up for the fundamental values of fairness that this country has always held had most dear. we need to do that this week with this nomination as well. >> mr. president. >> senator from wyoming. >> thank you, mr. president. i rise today as well to speak about the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh to serve on the united states supreme court. he was nominated july 9th, 86 days ago today. even before he was nominated, a number of members of this body stood and said they would oppose the nomination, not even knowing who he or she might have been. that they would oppose the nomination to the supreme court. after the na

who were nominated by president 0bama.ustice gorsuch. sol nominated by president trump. —— justice gorsuch. so i began my evaluation ofjustice justice gorsuch. so i began my evaluation of justice kavanaugh justice gorsuch. so i began my evaluation ofjustice kavanaugh by reviewing his 12 year record on the dc circuit court of appeals including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys including lawyers from the nonpartisan congressional research service brief to me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judges extensive record. i met withjudge kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. i listened carefully to the testimony of the committee hearings. i spoke with people who knew him personally, such as condoleezza rice, and many others. i talked withjudge condoleezza rice, and many others. i talked with judge kavanaugh a condoleezza rice, and many others. i talked withjudge kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional q

hours after he was nominated. it was, thus, abundantly clear that his number-one political goal was to defeat the nomination by any means necessary. it was right there from the beginning, madam president. a clear declaration, plain as day -- nothing, nothing could get most democrats to consider this nominee with an open mind. it would be delaying tactics, obstruction, and so-called resistance until the final vote was called. for a few weeks their efforts played out along the lines that sad lay have become somewhat ordinary around here. there were excuses for delay. those fell flat. there were gross distortions of judge kavanaugh's record, that were batted down by outside fact-checkers. and there were all the usual phony apocalyptic accusations. hostile to women, hostile to vulnerable people, hostile to workers. same old tricks. same old playbook. but here was the problem -- the old plays weren't working. the distortions were being literally drowned out by the facts. senators received and reviewed more pages of bac

hours after he was nominated. it was thus abundantly clear his goal was to defeat the nomination by any means necessary. it was right there from the beginning, madam president. clear declaration plain as day, nothing, nothing could get most democrats to consider this nominee with an open mind. it would be delay tactics, obstruction, and so-called resistance until the final vote was called. for a few weeks, their efforts played out along the lines that sadly have become somewhat ordinary around here. there were excuses for delay. those fell flat. there were gross distortions of judge kavanaugh's record that were batted down by outside fact checkers. and there were all the usual phony apocalyptic pronouncements that are shouted whenever a republican president nominated a supreme court justice. happens every time. hostile to women, hostile to vulnerable people, hostile to workers, same old tricks, same old playbook. but here was the problem. the old plays weren't working. the distortions were being literally drowned

of the supreme court but especially the nomination to judge kavanaugh. i think even someone who would disagree with me on my views of organized labor or his record would agree it is highly unlikely if not impossible we would have an american middle-class without organized labor all of the sacrifice that was undertaken to achieve the right to organize. that right is threatened now and the nomination is one of the threats to that basic right. it should come as no surprise that this nominee has sprung from that same process i mentioned earlier where i believe this list that has been put on the table nobody could be nominated to the supreme court by this administration unless you are 25 that wasof chosen by those two groups. heritage and federalist society. you are seen as a federal court judge or even a state supreme court justice where we have some members of the supreme court if you are one of those appointed you don't have any chance to get on the supreme court because you are not on that list of 25. i think the administration should reach a lot for long

now there are a lot of reasons to oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination. i want to discuss three of them. his record, the broken and biased confirmation process, and the allegations of sexual assault. let's start with judge kavanaugh's record. judge kavanaugh has spent 12 years on the d.c. circuit court. his rulings demonstrate why radical right-wing groups and their friends in the senate are so eager to give him a seat on the supreme court. pick an issue, almost any issue, and there is ample reason to be alarmed. a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. when the donald trump sought to block a young immigrant woman's right to access abortion care, judge kavanaugh sided with the government, claiming that allowing the woman who had done everything necessary to obtain access to an abortion, should be further delayed in obtaining that care, a delay that would likely have prevented her from obtaining an abortion. and when religious organizations challenged the contraceptive care requirement of the affordable care act, judge kavanaugh again opposed

mcconnell scheduled a vote on the nomination the next day. he suspended the boat when it became clear that they wouldn't have to if they needed if they tried to ram the nomination through the senate right at that moment. then the president offered the smallest fbi investigation. i've just re come from a room where the summary of fbi interviews and other fbi generated documents were made available. senators have been been muffled so i will now say three things the committee staff has explained permissible to save without violating the committee rules. statesmen stifle some independently verified as accurate. one, this wasn't a full and fair investigation. it was limited in scope and explore the relevant facts. number two the available documents do not exonerate mr. kavanaugh. number three the available documents contradict statements mr. kavanaugh made under oath. i would like to back up these three points with statements made by the fbi document, explicit statements that should be available for the american people to see that the republicans

opponents of this nomination should accept its findings. mr. president, this has never been a search for the truth by senators who had already announced their opposition to this nomination. some of them before judge kavanaugh was named. it has become a matter of delaying and destroying. i do believe the senator from arizona, and others who joined his request did us a great favor by insisting on the supplemental background investigation. the american people can feel better that these have been followed and exhausted, for those still interested in a search for the facts. the american people know that we have taken it upon ourselves to take one last step to dispel the doubts about judge kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the highest court of the land. that step is now complete. so to senators flake, collins, and others who requested the background investigation, i say thank you. both dr. ford and judge kavanaugh had been badly treated throughout this process. dr. ford has been treated less as a real person then as a poker chip in a card game. her wis

the president nominated brett kavanaugh on july 9th. within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn't even bother to fill in the judge's name on his prewritten press release. they simply wrote that they opposed donald trump's nomination of xx to the supreme court of the united states. a number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even kno known. since that time, we have seen special interest groups with their followers, whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about judge kavanaugh's judicial record. over the top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines which although debunked hours later, continued to live on and be spread through social media. interest groups have also spent an unprecedented

first they help the president assad who to nominate. -- the president decide who to nominate.ryone has a basic fbi background check. of documents, and the fbi takes those, interviews people, and produces a background report. the president uses that, whoever the president is, as part of his dossier on who to nominate. then that file goes to the senate and forms the basis for the senate's advise and consent function. it's never a full-fledged criminal process. you can't use a subpoena. you can't compel people to interview. it is all voluntary. in this case in particular, the investigation this past week was clearly run from the senate judiciary committee. they set the terms because it is assisting them in making their decision, and the white house served as a conduit from the senate to the fbi. to the white house and the senate have a lot of conversations on the scope of this? that is certainly the way i've seen this work in the past. host: what do you think about the vehicle the senate majority leader employed to have senators roomat the document in a and closed, saying it was

the president nominated brett kavanaugh on july 9. within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that did not even bother to fill in the judge's name on its prewritten press release. they simply wrote that they opposed donald trump's thenation of "xx" to supreme court of the united states. a number of senators joined the ranks to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even known. time, we have seen special interest groups with their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about judge kavanaugh's judicial record. and-the-top rhetoric distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines which although debunked hours later continued to live on and be spread through social media. interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nominati

seldom by or end kagan who were nominated by president obama and justice gore set who was nominated by president truman. so i began my valuation of judge cavanagh's nomination by reviewing his twelve year record on the d.c. circuit court of appeals including his more than three hundred of canyons and his many speeches and law review articles nineteen attorneys including lawyers from the nonpartisan congressional research service briefed me many times each week and his says to me in the value of waiting the judge's extensive record i met with judge have enough for more than two hours in my office i've listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearing since i spoke with people who knew him personally such as condom lease of rights and many others and i talked with judge kavanagh a second time by phone for another hour or two as him very specific additional questions i also have met with thousands of my constituents both the advocates and many opponents regarding judge have a no. one concern that i frequently heard was said that judge would be likely to a limit a the afforda

you would not know it now on this nomination. the senator from maine said yesterday that we have hit rock comes -- bottom when it to the judicial confirmation process. sadly, i agree. >> what precipitated this embarrassing time for the senate was the deliberate withholding of dr. ford's allegations from the judiciary committee and judge kavanaugh until the 11th hour. and then, publicly ambushing everyone else concerned. that, inen a process words that echo from another senate, ther the mccarthy hearings, it has been cruel, reckless, and indecent. both to dr. ford and judge kavanaugh. these hijinks in the weaponization of the confirmation process, we have bent over backwards to try to accommodate dr. ford once she said she wanted to come for the committee. we know she requested confidentiality answer allegations were investigated. she did not consent to -- or authorize the release of her letter. she did not want a public spectacle. judiciary committee staff has been offered to fight a california on a bipartisan basis and interview

the nomination of brett m. kavanaugh of maryland to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states is confirmed. majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the vice president: the sergeant at arms will restore order in the gallery. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. alled opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i understand that the senate has received a message fr

when brett kavanaugh was nominated to the d.c. circuit court of appeals in 2004, he was known only as a hyperpartisan political operative because he was seen as so hyperpolitical, it took two years to get him confirmed. and since judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court, i've wondered whether his earlier partisan zeal held him up for two years, whether that has remained. well, it was confirmed last week it does remain. i have never seen a nominee of either a republican or democrat so consumed by partisan rancor. in testimony that veered into a tirade, he angrily attacked senators, dismissed dr. ford's testimony as part of a smear campaign to ruin his name and sink his nomination. his conspiratorial ram begs attributing the allegations to revenge on behalf of the clintons, wherever that came from, were an insult to dr. ford and to survivors of sexual violence everywhere. it's not helped that his patron, the president of the united states, continues to deride victims of sexual violence. former justice john paul stevens, a r

these concerns, i think, permeate every aspect of the nomination process and the nominee himself. when judge kavanaugh came forward because of the nomination by president trump, he came from a list of 25 names. these names were assembled by the white house in consultation with the record indicates just two groups. the heritage foundation and the federalist society. both are far right organizations that have a view of public policy that on most issues i don't agree with, but i think that's true of most pennsylvanians. i can't speak for the whole country, but i'd be willing to guess not in agreement with many people around the country. the heritage foundation, for example, has called labor unions, quote, cartels. that's one view that they seem to have about labor unions. i come from a state where we have a proud labor history, where people literally bled and died for the right to organize, whether it was the homestead strike in southwestern pennsylvania back at the turn of the previous century, or whether it was the lattimer massacre in northeastern pennsylvania, or whether it was t

and justice gorsuch who was nominated by president trump. i began my evaluation of judge kavanaugh's nomination by reviewing his 12 year record. on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. including his more than 300 opinions, and his many speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan congressional research service breached me many times each week. and assisted me in evaluating the judge's extent of record. i met with judge kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. i listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. i spoke with people who knew him personally. such as condoleezza rice and many others. i talked with the judge kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour. to ask him very specific additional questions. i also have met with thousands of my constituents. both advocates and many opponents. regarding judge kavanaugh. one concern that i frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the affordable care ask vital protections for people with pre- existing con

especially the nomination of judge kavanaugh. i think even someone who would disagree with me on my views of organized o labor for my views n his record would agree that it is highly unlikely if not impossible that we would have an american middle class without organized labor, without all about work, all of the sacrifice that wasve undertaken to achieve the right to organize. that rate is threatened now and i think this nomination is one of the threats to that basic right. it should come as no surprise that this nominee has sprung from not being as somewhat earlier, where i believe in this list has now by this administration unless you're on the list of 25 that was chosen by those two groups. so if you're conservative, you're seen as a conservative judge federal court judge by the appellate court or maybe even the state supreme court justice. are we had some members of the u.s. supreme court have their start. if, you're not on that list of 25,oi if you're one of the hundreds of judges appointed by republican presidents, you need

i will vote no on his nomination. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to come in and kind of summarize. you and i both as a presiding officer have had a front row seat in this process. we both serve on the judiciary committee. i think that oftentimes people come to the floor and they want to just give the american public a little slice of what's gone on that benefits their narrative rather than stepping back and thinking about what's happened since early july when judge kavanaugh was nominated to be on the supreme court. that happened on july 9. before july 9, there were many people on the other side of the aisle that had already announced their opposition, not to judge kavanaugh but to anyone that president trump would nominate. we know who they are. they are very well publicized. i understand that as a member of the democratic conference. i would deny them their right to do that. they oppose the president and anything that he stands for.

but now they're lining up to praise you for ramming through the cavanaugh nomination and even the likes of steve bannon has prays what he called, your strong leadership. are you happy to have his approval serve? >> it's almost an out of body experience. [laughter] >>chris: but how do you take this criticism, the tea party, the far right of the republican party has had a view over the years. as you've been trying to do your business on capitol hill? >> it's pretty hard to be a majority leader without getting criticism. i'd rather be judged by my record. i think this has been and is ordinarily accomplished congress. the most productive to your. right of center whether it's taxes, regulations, we've gone the economy booming. and were making long-term systemic changes in the courts that will serve future generations of americans in a very good way. >>chris: i know there have been bipartisan accomplishments as well.you voted on in faa bill. you also did a big bill to fight the opioid crisis. but there's no question that this brett kavanaugh confirmation battle has come at a cost, the relatio

it wasn't just the nomination for someone to serve on the supreme court. it was critically important to americans to know who would and that person, what their views were when it came to the health of women, the protection of our health insurance, our privacy, our right to vote. and it also was very clear that we held this hearing in the context of a national debate on sexual harassment and sexual violence. is it any surprise that this explosive issue, which has touched corporate boardrooms, our churches, sports, congress, has now been raised in our debate over a nomination to our highest court? and i ask my colleagues, is there a single one of us in the last two weeks who has not had an experience with someone coming forward either in writing or in person to tell you of their experience when it came to sexual harassment and sexual violence? just a few minutes ago i read the latest letters we received in my office, two women from the state of illinois who told me in their letters they are saying for the first time what happened to them many years ago and h

she voted against advancing kavanaugh's nomination. normally if you go against your own party in the motion to proceed, you'll stay the course and do it again in the motion to confirm. she also said today kavanaugh is in her view maybe not the right man for the court at this time. the truth is, the republicans don't really need her. if susan collins votes yes, that is likely the whole ball game. down this home stretch, top senators are making a final push on the senate floor. >> what left wing groups and their democratic allies have done to judge kavanaugh so nothing short of monstrous. >> judges are expected to be "even-handed, unbiased, impartial and courteous." last week, we saw a man filled with anger and aggression. >> shepard: after last week's hearing, democrats noted that president trump's pick showed political bias during the testimony. some insisted he may have purgered himself regarding his past behavior and he did not display the right temperament to be a supreme court justice. now judge kavanaugh is making his case one las

for every supreme court nomination combined. we read judge kavanaugh's 12-year record of judicial rulings from our nation's second highest court, 300 plus opinions. we heard sworn testimony, written accounts from hundreds of character witnesses from all stages of judge kavanaugh's life and career. and the picture painted by these facts was nothing like the caricatu caricature. it was clear the old tactics weren't working. wasn't going to get the job done. the resistance demanded more. try something new, they said. we all know what happened next, uncorroborated allegations of the most sensitive and most serious sort were sharpened into political weapons. one such allegation shared by dr. ford in confidence with the democratic side of the judiciary committee somehow mysteriously found its way into the press. chairman grassley immediately set out on a sober focused search for the truth. the committee collected testimony organized a new hearing and most recently asked for the supplemental fbi investigation, judge kavanaugh's seventh

justices sotomayor nominated by obama and gorsuch that was nominated by president trump. so i began my evaluation of judge kavanaugh's nomination by reviewing his 12 year record on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles. 19 attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan congressional research service briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge's extensive record. i met with judge kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office. i listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. i spoke with people who knew him personally, such as condoleezza rice and many others, and i talked with judge kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. i also have met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents, regarding judge kavanaugh. one concern i frequently heard was that the judge would be likely to eliminate the affordable care act vital protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

kavanaugh supreme court nomination. they also agreed to a five-year rethroes of the faa which includes $1.68 billion for hurricane florence relief, and lawmakers sent opioid abuse legislation to the president. live coverage of the senate when they return right on c-span 2. the hill tonight reports that senators will get to read the fbi's report on brett kavanaugh tomorrow. with the single copy being made available for the entire senate. according to democratic dic durban as quoted in the article, each party will take turn reviewing the document in one-hour blocks of time. durban was on the floor earl yrp. >> mr. mcconnell: the national spectacle the professional left has created around judge brett kavanaugh confirmation process has now reached some kind of fever pitch. in 17 days, since dr. ford's confidential correspondence, was leaked to the press, 17 days mr. president, of a feepgd frenzy on judge kavanaugh and his family, unlike anything we have seen in recent memory. since then, a literal mudslide. mudslide of wild

this was a long, overdue nomination. if confirmed, you will become the first confirmed commissioner at the social security administration since 2013. i believe most if not all of my colleagues agree that having a confirmed commissioner and sustained leadership will benefit the social security administration, its operations, employees, and the american people who rely upon the social security checks. it is confirmed -- you would take charge of an agency facing many challenges including persistent information- technology modernization issues and large work backlogs. last week i laid out some of these challenges at a nomination hearing for another important position within the agency. this agency needs someone in charge to help reduce disability determination backlogs and workload and backlogs. was backlogs at the social security administration are unacceptable to many if not most of us here in the senate and are not fair for the american people and social security beneficiaries. operational issues at the agency need your i

his nomination had to be withdrawn just three days after his hearing, which brings us to the nomination of jonathan kobes to the eighth circuit, who was up for circuit today. kobes nots rated mr. qualified by a substantial authority of the evaluating committee. they found he does not have the to be ate experience" circuit court judge. troubleut, the aba had finding enough in this record to make a thorough evaluation. they found none of his writings were "reflective of complex legal analysis, knowledge of the law, or ability to write about complex matters in a clear and cogent manner." this should really be concerning to all of us. a lack of basic experience and qualifications is not or should not be a partisan issue. we should all want the best and the brightest for our federal courts, especially the circuit courts. we should all ensure that those being nominated to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench have the basic experience necessary to perform the functions of the job. i am disappointed that we continue to consider to vote on nominees who do not maintain these basic standard

i vote cloture on the nomination yesterday evening and i will be proud to vote to advance this nomination tomorrow. >> mister president, it is

advancing his nomination.l vote is set for tomorrow evening pay less than 30 hours from now. this is outnumbered, i melissa francis. here today is harris faulkner, fox news can your bitter lisa boothe, host of kennedy on the fox business network, kennedy, and joining us on the couch, jake maccoby, former chief speechwriter. for former attorney general loretta lynch, and former policy advisor to the hillary clinton

the senate will vote on thishi nomination. when we do we will be voting on one of the most impressive qualified supreme court nominees in our nations history. we will be voting to confirm a justice with sterling academic credentials whil while he acknowledged brilliance and exemplary judicial temperament and a proven commitment to complete fairness on the bench. that is exactly what the senate will do this week. >> first, i'm glad the majority leader and i get along. i'm glad we are able to do certain things together like the appropriation bill that cannot hold me back from

the president nominated brett kavanaugh on july 9th. within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn't even bother to fill in the judge's name on its prewritten press release. they simply wrote that they opposed donald trump's nomination of xx to the supreme court of the united states. a number of senator joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee's identity was even known. since that time we have seen special interest groups with their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about judge kavanaugh's judicial record. over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimonies at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines, which although debunked hours later continued to live on and be spread through social media. interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money oppo

i want to thank president trump for nominating me. i'm humbled and honored by the confidence he has shown any to this nomination. it is without question the highlight of my professional career. i would like to thank the white house attorneys and the justice department attorneys for their guidance to this process. i would not be here today without my wonderful family who shows me unconditional love and support. with me today is my wife edie. we have been married for 23 years. she is my best friend, closest confidant, biggest supporter and a wonderful mother to her two children. edie is the ultimate team player. yesterday was her birthday. she spent it helping me prepare for this hearing rather than celebrating. i owe her a nice dinner tonight. unfortunately our children were not able to be here with us today. they both have school and other activities at home that they couldn't miss. our daughter emily is a sophomore at florida state university and a third- generation seminal. she originally planned to major in elementary education but

been here before we officially moved to take up the nomination. every republican member of the committee agreed judge kavanaugh should be reported with a favorable recommendation and every democrat voted in opposition. and in some cases before he or anyone had been nominated and they did not mince any words, mr. president. one put it the supporters of judge kavanaugh are, quote, listen to this, complicit in the evils. that is a democratic member of the judiciary committee. another democrat on the many debates the committee before he was even named described an almost apocalyptic term and the consequencetheconsequences of we president might nominate. here's the quote. we are looking at the destruction of the constitution of the united states as far as i can tell. and here's the democratic leader just hours after the judges nominated. i will oppose hi them with everything i've got. welwhile they've certainly done just that. the ranking democrat on the committee first f heard from doctor ford on july 30. did our colleague alert the chairman of the co

so i file cloture on the nomination -- i filed cloture on the nomination yesterday evening, and i will be proud to vote to advance this nominating tomorrow. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: minority leader. mr. schumer: are we in quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, it's another morning in the senate and another partisan diatribe coming from my good friend -- and he is my good friend -- the majority leader. instead of looking at what happened, that a young woman came forward because she felt compelled to, knowing she'd risk so much on herself, which unfortunately has happened, he seeks to blame somebody else, in this case the democrats. let's remember dr. ford came forward before judge kavanaugh was even nominated. dr. ford came forward and called up two people before anyone even knew of her allegations, including one, a hotline from "the washington post

he's guilty of being nominated by a republican president. he is guilty of pledging his allegiance to the law instead of the democrats' preferred judicial outcomes. and so any means of defeating him became fair game, no matter how unjust, no matter how outlandish. dr. ford certainly deserved to have her claims heard and investigated, but democrats didn't stop there. they gave credence to almost every accusation that was thrown out, no matter how ridiculous or uncorroborated. it didn't matter if no less a paper than "the new york times" had declined to publish an accusation for lack of any corroboration. if it would slow down judge kavanaugh's confirmation, they grabbed onto it. at least one democrat senator suggested we need an f.b.i. investigation because judge kavanaugh had thrown ice at someone in college. ice, mr. president. apparently throwing ice in college is now grounds for an f.b.i. investigation. what's next? an f.b.i. investigation because judge kavanaugh stole another kid's toy in preschool? because he didn't share his swing on th

i also thank senator flake and kyle and senator mccain for my nomination and the judicial nomination selection committee for work in evaluating judicial nominees. i do not have an opening statement but would like to introduce my family. my husband, tom beatty, we met in law school and we have been married for 27 years, a dedicated husband and father and talented and respected tax attorney and my greatest supporter and advocate, the blessing of my life. i introduce our son, matthew, a junior, a physics major with an english minor and he enjoys writing science fiction. is an eagle scout. our daughter madeline is a junior, an excellent student who enjoys singing in the school choir and spent three summers working as a volunteer program for children with special needs and they are proud of matthew and madeleine for their accomplishments but more importantly i am proud of them because they are kind, compassionate and care about other people. my parents have been the most important influences in my life. my parents were children of the great depression and my father was a veteran of world

then the nomination goes forward to one more vote. to hold up to 30 hours of debate before that final vote could happen, which would put it at around 5:00 p.m. eastern on saturday. now, that's a separate vote. it would be possible for senators to vote yes tomorrow on moving forward, and still vote no on saturday to confirm kavanaugh to the court. the game so far has been that opponents of the nomination need every democrat to vote no, plus two republicans. here's that slight sort of twist in that calculation. the republican senator from montana named steve danes, not a high profile senator. he said last week he looks forward to casting his vote for kavanaugh, he'd be a yes. an nbc reporter in montana said now senator danes has a scheduling conflict this weekend. he will be home in montana is getting married and he's walking her down the aisle. if he's away his absence could conceivably push republican tuesday hold off on the final vote until he comes back. for now the schedule is procedural vote until tomorrow morning. if they do get

obviously this was a very closely fought nomination. senator manchin crossed over, appears to be a yes vote tomorrow as well as a yes vote for cloture today. other than that, all democrats held together against this nomination. there was a very fierce fight in the judiciary committee every step of the way over this nomination. democrats i think went as hard as they could against this nomination. it does not seem to have been successful in the end. are there other things that you think democrats could have done or should have done better? was this a winnable fight? >> well, it's hard to win when you're not in the majority. and that's why elections matter. i will tell you what was so inspiring to me is my daughter was 8 years old with me back in 1991 watching clarence thomas/anita hill hearings. and today she is a mother with two young daughters. and she sent me a text during the first hearings and said to me, mom, look at the democratic side. unlike when you and i were watching it many years ago, i can turn to my young daughters and say

i think opponents of this nomination knew they couldn't beat his nomination the old-fashioned way, on the merits. so they decided to throw in the kitchen sink. first became the trash talking, claims that supporters of brett kavanaugh's nomination would somehow be complicit with evil. that was a united states senator who said that. another said his confirmation could spell the destruction of the constitution itself. these are apocalyptic words and rhetoric. most americans can spot wild untruths and petty shaming when they see it so that didn't work very well. and opponents had to move on to round 2. they then argued brett kavanaugh could not be fair and impartial because of his views on executive power or because of his experience working on the terrorist detention policy following the attacks that devastated this country on september 11, 2001, when he worked at the white house. thankfully the fact checkers did their due diligence and spotted errors with each of these arguments and so opponents of the nomination moved on. next came the great paper chase, the insistence that more and mo

the most produced for any supreme court nomination in our history. and the 300 plus he has issued during his 12 years on the dc circuit. and now senators with will have the evidence collected by the background investigation for their consideration as well. members will have the opportunity to review investigators records, and as the standard procedure designated judiciary staff members with the required clearances will be authorized to brief members. there will be plenty of time for members to review and be briefed on the supplemental material before a friday vote. i'm filing until the process can move forward as i indicated earlier. this week so mr. president, what is the pending business? >>ic the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the a associate justice of the supreme court. ur>> i send a emotion to the -- loe clerk will report. >> closerrer motion, we thes, undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do he be move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of brett m kavanaugh to be an as