circuit court of appeals was robert bork. so the democrats knew this was coming and they were prepared and they wasted no time at all. some people complained in the current situation that senator mcconnell waited less than a couple hours after antonin scalia died before staking out his claim to this nomination fight we're now in. in fact, senator edward kennedy went to the floor of the senate something like 45 minutes after bork was announced as the nominee and essentially said, we the democrats are going to go after this guy hammer and tongs. he is all wrong. he's out of the main stream. so the stage for the confrontation was definitely set. >> let's take a look. we'll go back to 1987 and show you what republican senators chuck grassley and mitch mcconnell had to say about the senate handling of the bork nomination. these speeches are from 1987. you can also find them in their entirety in our video library at c-span.org. >> i would like to be the first before i start to you and your family as you appear before this committee

we are told the hearings were tilted against the bork. but there were more witnesses that testified for him then the opposition. i have heard to be blamed on scheduling the witnesses. recently alternated pro-con, pro-con. power after panel. the list of excuses goes on and on. with the camera angle, they said. the beard, the light, the timing. all unfair. all engaged in by those who oppose bork to bring him down. and some, the conservative ring in the republican party is never accepted the cold, hard fact that the senate rejected joint bork because his views came to be well understood and considered unacceptable. and because this rejection, because of -- excuse me, because of this rejection of their core philosophy is inconceivable to the legal right, they have been on a hunt for vilains ever since. they have attacked the press as in a recent tempered speech by conservative federal judge, new york times reporters, among the finest supreme court covered hearings. but most of all, these movement conservatives have attacked the confirmation p

process began with judge bork. it continued with the nomination of clarence thomas where opponents inquired into the practices of the church at wish he -- at which he worship. this came to a head in president bush's circuit court nominee. has led some to try to change the rules of the game. filibusterwas the against 10 qualified nominees and a serious challenge to the constitution's balance of powers. wasncerted strategy developed by my colleague from new york, senator schumer along with a number of activists. through a series of hearings, senator schumer determined it was not sufficient to ask what a nominees qualifications were, whether a senator must determine whether they were eligible. they need to know how a person would a pro-chick case is a man -- would approach a case as a man or a woman and presumably the nominee was a more favorable reading to americans with disabilities act if she worked with disabled children. obviously qualified nominee would become a no vote. when the democrats lost the majority, the

circuit court of appeals was robert bork. at all. some people complained in the current situation that senator mcconnell waited less than a couple hours after antonin scalia died before staking out his claim to this nomination fight we're now in. in fact, senator edward kennedy went to the floor of the senate something like 45 minutes after bork was announced as the nominee and essentially said, we the democrats are going to go after this guy hammer and tongs. he is all wrong. he's out of the main stream. so the stage for the confrontation was definitely set. >> let's take a look. we'll go back to 1987 and show you what republican senators chuck grassley and mitch mcconnell had to say about the senate handling of the bork nomination. these speeches are from 1987. you can also find them in their entirety in our video library at c-span.org. senator grassley: i would like to add my welcome to you and your family as you appear before this committee. i am eager to hear your views. it is often said, and i think correctly so, that o

and they had known that robert bork was coming.robert bork had been on the short list for republican president supreme court nominations really since the 1970s. robert bork had been an assistant attorney general for richard nixon. given a solicitor general for richard nixon. he had been a part of the so-called saturday night massacre during watergate when several senior people to them resigned and he was acting as attorney general. as soon as reagan became president in 1981, one of his first judicial appointments was robert bork. so the democrats knew this was coming and they were prepared and they wasted no time at all. some people complained in the current situation that senator mcconnell waited less than a couple of hours after antonin scalia died before taking -- staking his claim. and facts and edward kennedy went to the floor of the senate something like 45 minutes after robert bork was announced as the nominee and essentially said we the democrats are going to go after this guy hammer and tong. he's out of the mainstream. so

withdrawal of justice ginsburg just days after president reagan selected him to succeed bork as his nominee. the fierce fight which none of us will ever forget in 1991 over clarence thomas's confirmation to the court which broke chief justice william rehnquist's record for receiving the most negative votes in senate history. the immediate process -- product of these conflicts, to change the court over the past few years, has already been dramatic. as duke professor walter dillinger pointed out, we might see as many as five justices retire within the next four years. in all likelihood we stand at only the halfway point in the remaking of the supreme court. with as many confirmation controversies, as we saw over the past two terms combined. by the time we arrive at the next election year, 1996, there is substantial chance that no member of the court serving on the court in june 1986 will remain on the bench. such complete replacement of the court in just ten years has only one precedent since the court was permanently expanded to tween 9 members over numb 100 years ago. today, as we s

this process began really with judge bork. it continued with the nomination of kwlarnse thomas where his opponents even inquired into the tisses of the church at which he worshpped. all of this came to a head with the filibuster of president bush's circuit court nominees. with that effort, the politicization of the judicial selection process has led some to try to change the rules of the game. the result was the filibuster against ten qualified nominees at a seers challenge tot constitution's balance of powers. early in this president's first term a strategy was developed by my cloog from new york senator schumer along wa number of law professors and activists. through a series of hearings senator schumer determined that it was not sufficient to ask what a nominee's qualifications were. rather, a senator determine first what a nominee's ideology is. senators need to know what the nominee's views are. they need to know how a person would approach the case as a man or woman or a person wa particular background. presumably a nomi

there's no doubt judge bork was controversial. and he did not shy from any controversy. those with us this year after john roberts domination,c-span ran footage of past confirmation hearings . judge bork's still stands out for the vigorous defense of humanity of his well reasoned position. and there is no doubt that he had a conservative judicial philosophy but that philosophy was wrongly painted as outside of the mainstream of american justice. many made similar associations about justices scalia and thomas. i did not know what stream these critics were navigating because the constitution puts limits on congress authority under the commerce clause, then the constitution text modest religious displays in the public square and that the constitution does not create a nebulous and unqualified right to sexual liberty, mainstream views in the latter academy on the bench and in political life. with robert bork however, we work on the rubicon when it came to defending him against these unfair tenants. we did not anticipate the vigor with which his opponents sabotage the judicia

they put a lot of pressure on bork to do it. he did it, and it cost him a seat on the supreme court, later, when reagan nominated him. because of the hard feelings which would continue among democrats for decades about bork's action in firing cox. here is a clip what happened the night cox was fired. all the networks -- i happen to be watching television, and learned about it that night. i had just pled guilty a few days earlier, thinking that cox was going to do this right, and i had agreed to cooperate with him, and proceed accordingly. i was somewhat stunned when this interruption occurred. i was able to locate that clip. >> at the white house, president nixon has disbarred archibald cox and abolished the special prosecution office as a result of prosecutor cox being discharged, attorney general elliot richardson has resigned his post as attorney general. and when deputy attorney general william ruckelhaus refused to carry out orders from the president, he was discharged as deputy attorney general. the acting attorney general

judge bork's views are controversial. we could get into that if we had the time, but philosophy matters. philosophy clearly how one interprets the constitution, whether one's views are consistent with the great arc of justice to what senator kennedy was dedicated, of course, dr. martin luther king articulated. that matters. and so the senate has taken it into account. i don't know how much time we have, but perhaps he ought to talk at some point about where all this goes. >> the two questions i'd like to get into as we go through this is, is this issue of duty. there's been a lot of debate. there was a lot of comment in the comments from senator hatch, and applied in the comments from senator leahy about whether or not there is a duty of the senate to consider a nominee. and i don't know if you wanted to talk a little bit about that, marty. >> the senate has a duty consider a nominee except how it considers compound exercises that duty as a matter of dispute. in a sense, inaction is also action. there have been any number

here there is a dramatic change from the bork nomination in 1987 to the thomas nomination in 1991. let observation. , the eventst surrounding the nomination of judge bork have been so misrem embered that observers have completely overlooked one great reacher of these events. -- feature of these events. that is, in most respects, this for howxcellent model the contemporary nomination and confirmation process is debated and should be concluded and but conducted. shortly after he was debated, after observing his records, writings, and speeches, i announced my decision and several other members of the committee did the same. educational.was i laid out the bases for my position in two major national speeches, and other senators did likewise. theyhite house issued, as should have, a very detailed paper proposing to outline judge bork's philosophy. a group of respective consultants to the committee issued a response to this white house paper. the administration put out a response to that response. while there were exceptions in this debate, as i mentioned earlier, by and large, it was an

his judicial philosophy wasn't a secret and with robert bork it started to change and the republicansand doing it to another nominee. is that political angle well covered? >> i hope so. it's certainly -- i hope you'll see the movie and see that's actually how we start with the complete politicization of the confirmation process and obviously that was a huge factor in this -- in the whole process. >> they felt that -- >> i'm very interested in the clash of the profoundly political and intensely personal that this dramatized. >> well i mean the acting looks spectacular. the clip alone is intriguing. thank you. you're here. did you want to say something? >> sure n. a couple years later, anita hill goes on television and defends bill clinton against assault charges in 1998. >> uh-huh. fascinating. i think we have piqued the audience's curiosity. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back. n behind. with the agressive new 2016 lexus gs 350 and 200 turbo. once driven, there's no going back. if you're running a business legalzoom has your back. over the last 10 years we'v

john bork gives us the latest from d.c. coming up. ifbut find it harder and hardert to get by, you're not alone. while our people work longer hours for lower wages, almost all new income goes to the top 1%. my plan -- make wall street banks and the ultrarich pay their fair share of taxes, provide living wages for working people, ensure equal pay for women. i'm bernie sanders. i approve this message because together, we can make a political revolution and create an economy and democracy that works for all and not just the powerful few.

officials say pilots are not flying the new approach because the faa's charted flight path and they are bork working to improve the graphics. >>> the death of a 7-year-old girl is under investigation tonight. they are looking into the death of lily love who died on saturday. it's not the school's first brush with tragedy. rana is in eastchester with the details tonight. rana? >> reporter: there are grief counselors at the school today. they said they will be here for as long as students need. we don't know yet how the second grader hdied, but some parents tell me they're worried for the safety of their own children. lily love enjoyed soccer, art and swimming. lily died over the weekend, parents notified by letter. >> it's very devastating any time there is a loss of any child anywhere. >> i'd like everybody to say a are with her. >> rep ter: the superintendent of schools can't talk about how lily died, but he does say the health department is involved. they cleared the school and didn't find any threats. n">> under the advice of the department of health, they have advised our schools are saf

you can enjoy the good bork but al-jazeera america as an entity is going away. >> it's been controversial. i don't think among the smarter viewers but it's something that it's nice to have another voice. and al-jazeera english will continue. >> the voice of the voices i got to bring that so ticience and technology. we were doing body cameras, trees, great thing. >> thank you. that's our show for this week. i'm scott mcgrew. thank you for making us part of thank you for making us part of your sunday morning. rage sol that simplify it. city national bank, providing loans and lines of credit to help northern california businesses grow. damian trujillo: hello and welcome to "comunidad del valle." i'm damian trujillo, and today the bay area gardeners scholarship foundation is back, giving more money to bay area students. plus, a personal message to bay area fans by mariachi vargas, on your "comunidad del valle." male announcer: nbc bay area presents "comunidad del valle" with damian trujillo. damian: we begin today with a very unique program called mujeres in accion, down here in the south bay

catherine's father by the way and they got it and issued positive rulings and the centers for robert bork and antonin scalia and kenneth star. [laughter] the supreme court ultimately decided to come and this is absolutely revolutionary as the hostile environment affects the terms, conditions and employment of the language just as much is losing money. they never contested that she deserved to be an assistant manager which is what she was promoting to. the hearings were five years after that. >> service was six years after. >> veneta drives on for another at least five years but i think the hearings are what's changed the conversations that happened but it really wasn't until this discussion really started. then the case very briefly she -- it was a hostile work environment she was the manager in a company. all i can think of is daphne coleman and 95 he would drop a pencil on the floor for women to bend over to pick up and he would've turnewould turn the aig down really cold to see what would happen to women when it was really cold, just gross. i have a quarter down here in my pocket can y

the dissenters were robert bork and antonin scalia. >> and ken starr. [laughter] >> and -- so, the supreme court ultimately decided -- this is absolutely revolutionary -- was that a hostile environment affects the terms, conditions and privileges of employment, which is the statutory language, just as much as losing money does, and that was the issue with michelle vinson, she had advanced at the bank and the bank never contested she was an excellent employee and the assistant manager which is what she was promoted to. so the bank said nothing ever happened to her that was negative in her pocketbook so how can we be held liable? and then that was extraordinary, although i think a lot of people didn't absorb because the anita hill hearings were five years after that. >> so this is '86 by the time it got the supreme court. >> yes, and then got remanded back to the trial court and dragged on for another at least five years, and finally she settled. but then -- i moon i think the anita hill, clarence thomas hearings changed the discussion about sexual harass

really the bork of so many of us join together as a community to offer the help to the many immigrants. >> how close were you? were you right there with him? did he touch you? he spoke to you, i know. >> i did meet him personally when i was in new york, in the residence of our archbishop. so i was this close, as we are. >> we're seeing the picture. jeff, i want to get to you about how sister norma was chosen. but first, you mentioned your work with refugees and immigrants. explain to us, what kind of work are you doing? >> families come from so far away for many days, weeks, and they find themselves mostly moms with their children, and they're in such a sad state. the border patrol apprehends them, processes them, then allows them to go somewhere else to continue their proceedings. we offer them an opportunity to clean up, to eat something, and move on. so we provide them that sense of care that they need in those first days when they just arrive. >> we should note the bay area here is home to thousands of refugees and immigrants so i'm sure they can relate to the work you are doing. j

look at what they're putting out with this it reminds of ted kennedy's character assassination of bob bork. >> those are politicians. have you ever seen the media do this? it's not just left wing immediate yashgs mara, the national review had the big cover with donald trump. the media attacks donald trump which he loves to run against. they've really gone up to number two here. >> national review is a self-identified conservative publication. the "boston globe" has a liberal editorial page, i think this is not obliterating the fire wall completely because they place that thing on the editorial page in the opinion section. but it's knocking down the fire wall. massachusetts, i think to date, was donald trump's best state. he got 49.something in the vote. i think in the republican primary, timing of it. >> they'll be influential in going into the other northeastern states. >> we're running out of time. when we come back, new york's massive media mob at the center of the political universe. which candidates can handle the tabloid times? and hillary and bernie using the media mega phone to tra

this was a way, announce that they they're borking together is a way to be sure and let the super pacs know without making a phone call from a campaign to a super pac that we're going to work together and this may be our hail mary pass but we're losing officers and have to do something -- losing otherwise and that's what you do. whether this will work is a whole other question because it kind of makes trump supporters, who are -- i'm sorry -- cruz supporter who are purists say why would he work with an establish. time like kashich and okay circumstance supporters have to wonder if kashich is a moderate if he is willing to teen team up with ted cruz. >> i don't look at is at collusion. reminds people of the underbelly of politics where candidates have done this over the many presidential elects. having said that, though, whatever you think of it, don't think it's going to do much good and i only go on the basis of the question why now? is it too little too late? what do you think? >> i agree with gina. this his hail mary pass. i'm no fan of donald trump but this hays the possibility to

they're putting out, it simultaneously reminds me of ted kennedy's character assassination of bob bork during the senate supreme court hearings -- >> those are politicians. have you ever seen the media -- not just the left wing media, mara, it's the "national review" had the big cover against trump with 22 writers. the media attacks donald trump, which he loves to run against, have gone up to def con 2. >> the "national review" is a self-identified conservative publication. the "boston globe" that has a liberal editorial page, i think this is not obliterating the firewall completely because they place that on the editorial page instead of the front page calling it a parity, in the opinion section -- a parody, in the opinion section, but massachusetts to date was donald trump's best state. he got 49 point something of the vote, even though it's a blue state. in the republican primary, he did better there than anywhere else. >> he's going to be influential gs goi going into states like connecticut. >> they clearly do not agree. we're running out of time. >>> coming up, new york's massive

look at what they're putting out with this it reminds of ted kennedy's character assassination of bob bork. during the senate supreme court hearings. >> but those are politicians. have you ever seen the media do something like that? not just left wing media. the national review had a big cover against trump with 22 conservative writers. the media attacks donald trump which he loves to run against. they have gone up to deaf con 2. >> national review is a self-identified conservative publication. the "boston globe" has a liberal editorial page, i think this is not obliterating the fire wall completely because they place that thing on the editorial page instead of on the front page, calling it a parody, in the opinion section. but it's knocking down the firewall. massachusetts, i think to date, was donald trump's best state. he got 49 point something of the vote. i think in the republican primary, timing of it. >> they'll be influential in going into the other northeastern states. like connecticut. >> the boston globe doesn't agree with the verdict of the conservative voters in massachusetts.

is it something that we should be worried about, this unwillingness to bork with the united states anymore on this issue? >> thank you, dina. before i respond to your question i do want to put it in some historical context. i must say it's a tremendous honor to appear on a panel with a number of my good friends but also one of my real heroes, senator lugar. as he knows and as sam nunn knows, i have as the privilege to nominate the two of them for a nobel peace prize on a number of occasions and very deserving and i wanted to first really applaud the tremendous efforts that the two senators have been able to promote over their many, many years in government and out of government. >> thank you. >> let me kind of recast the or respond to your question, dina, again, acknowledging that both of us once upon a time focused on soviet affairs roother than just russian affairs and the point that i think is tremendously important looking at the nature of u.s./russian relations to date, particularly as they pertain to nonproliferation is that for many decades beginning probably one could say with the

if you talk to republicans, they'll also often point to the bork nomination as where this all startedand there have been times where democrats used the filibuster to block what republican presidents or conservative legal theorists viewed as eminently qualified jurists. i will say that there has not been a circumstance in which a republican president's appointee did not get a hearing, did not get a vote, and as a general proposition, they have been confirmed even where there have been strong objections. so what you have here is, i think, a circumstance in which those in the senate have decided that placating our base is more important than upholding their constitutional and institutional roles in our democracy in a way that is dangerous. and there are other examples of it, but this judicial nomination process i think has become an extreme example. david a. strauss: let me take you back a step to how -- to your thinking about when you're making an appointment. and i'm going to try to put it in an historical context a little bit. you have presidents who really set out to reshape the cour

in the middle of 1987, and then the senate with president reagan went through hearings with judge bork and then they looked at judge ginsburg -- not the judge ginsburg currently on the court but another judge ginsburg. and then eventually nine months or so later, justice kennedy was put on the court, but that wasn't a vacancy that occurred in an election year. it took nine months to fill a vacancy that occurred a year before the election year or in the year before the election year. when the job of the senate has always been to decide if this was the right time to do it. the last time a vacancy that was created in an election year was filled was 1936. 1936. democrat president, democrat senate, franklin roosevelt up for certain re-election and the vacancy was filled in 1936. the last time a vacancy was filled and was created in an election year when the house and the senate and the presidency were of different parties was 1888. 1968, president johnson tried to put abe fortis -- to move abe fortis from a justice on the supreme court to the chief justice, and democrats in control of the s

the bork nomination is where this all started. there have been times where democrats have used the filibuster to block what republican presidents or conservative legal theorist viewed as eminently qualified jurist. i will say that there has not aen a circumstance in which republican president's appointee did not get a hearing, a vote, and as a general proposition, they have been confirmed even when there has been strong objections. think,u have here is, i a circumstance in which those in the senate have decided that placating our base is more important than upholding their constitutional and institutional roles in our democracy in ways that are dangerous. there are other examples of it at this judicial nomination process has been an extreme example. >> let me take you back a step. in a, let me put it historical context. you have presidents who really set out to reshape the courts, franklin roosevelt may be the clearest example, determined to find justice that would uphold new deal legislation. richard nixon wanted justices that wo

if you talk to republicans, they will often point to the borke nomination as where this all started. and there have been times where toocrats used the filibuster presidentsrepublican or conservative legal theorists imminently qualified jurists. say that there has not aen a circumstance in which republican president's appointee did not get a hearing, did not a vote. and as a general proposition, evenhave been confirmed, where there have been strong objections. have here is, i think, a circumstance in which decided the senate have moreplacating our base is important than upholding their constitutional and institutional in our democracy in a way that is dangerous. and there are other examples of it. but this judicial nomination process, i think, has become an extreme example of that. >> uh-huh. let me take you back a step to whenou're thinking about you're making an appointment. again, let me try to put it in a historical context a little bit. you have presidents who really set out to reshape the court. and franklin roosevelt may be the clearest example. would findrmined who justices wh

nominated for a federal bench and they wouldn't get their hearing or perhaps, like a gentleman named bork, a gentleman named clarence thomas. they got a hearing, but as justice thomas properly stated back at the time, it wasn't so much a hearing as it was a high-tech lynching. but i'm sure all of us have our own personal stories that we're personally aware of. just happen to be one of 435 who have personal knowledge of personal friends, of people who were imminently qualified and were eventually confirmed. one of them was my law school colleague and we served in the same firm together for a few years, leonard e. davis. he was nominated in 1992 and, yes, as my friends across the aisle point out, it was the last of four years of the george h.w. bush term, but there was no reason not to give him a hearing. the guy had been editor of the baylor law review. a brilliant guy. engineer by undergraduate training. and, madam speaker, madam speaker, the really unfortunate but not only did he not get a hearing in 1992, not only did the senate democrats drag their feet and refuse to he him a hearing f

meeting and say, look, need to talk about the road ahead and you being at this location is not going to bork. there are circumstances where you would do a directed reassignment. i think there's some legitimacy to that. this goes back to do you have a policy in place that governs this and if there is, are people manipulating the policy? i'll tell you a comment i heard and i'll say it in this hearing because there are about 300 witnesses to it on the conference call. to take action, and let them file a lawsuit. i have 300 attorneys and i'll tie them up forever in court. that's the mentality that the people have. they feel they're bank rolled by the federal government to make these decisions. they don't care if you're going to file an eeo. they don't care if you contact the oig. it's difficult to get them to accept the complaint. there needs to be legitimacy with this. that's why these types of moves are absent. >> in my case, when they ended my probationary, the argument was made they had no proof. they said, don't worry about it. let them file a complaint. we'll outlast them. >> mr. chairman,