justice breyer: why? because by having the mock trial and talking about shakespeare , it suggests we have a relationship with shakespeare. that is all to our credit to have any relationship whatsoever. michael: what is your own personal relationship with shakespeare? did you read him? justice breyer: of course. my uncle who taught english, i never took his advice, i should have, but i was 20 years old, and he said, memorize shakespeare. i said, really? [laughter] justice breyer: he said, yes. because in a few years, maybe more than a few, when you are my age now, instead of going through your head, where am i going to have dinner? did i sleep well last night? instead of that, you have the words of shakespeare going through your mind and you will be surprised what an improvement that is. [laughter] michael: i know that -- you quote shakespeare a lot. even just know when we were talking, you remembered things. do you quote it in life a lot? justice breyer: if quote -- to quote or not to quote. i read once,

wasre justice breyer confirmed, he was, he was justice breyer on the u.s. court of appeals for the first circuit . he was nominated to that position by president carter, he was confirmed on december 9, 1980. think about that date for a moment here in december 9, 1980. that was after the 1980 election , but you may he was confirmed r 9, 1980. think about that recall, when yu the veryl ushered in of, as you tenure all know, ronald reagan. reagan revolution. not only did he defeat president carter in the presidential race, the republicans captured the senate for the first time in 26 years. justenate voted to confirm -- justice breyer in 1980, and it wasn't even close. it was 80-10. only six republicans opposed judge breyer's confirmation. judge breyer wasn't even nominated until after the 1980 election, so he was both nominated and confirmed after carter lost. think about that. after carter lost the election and democrats lost the senate. the republicans did not try to block him. they voted for him overwhelmingly. you would never see that today, no matter whic

before justice breyer was confirmed, he was justice breyer on the u.s. court of appeals for the 1st circuit. he was nominated to that position by president carter and he was confirmed on december 9th, 1980. think about that date for a moment. december 9th, 1980. that was after the 1980 election. when you may recall, which you may recall, ushered in the very interesting tenure of -- of, as you all know, ronald reagan. it was a reagan revolution. not only did ronald reagan defeat president carter in the presidential race, but republicans captured the senate for the first time in 26 years. notwithstanding all that, the senate voted to confirm judge breyer in december 1980 and the vote wasn't even close. it was 80-10. only six republicans opposed judge breyer's confirmation. and that's not the whole of it. judge breyer wasn't even nominated until after the 1980 election. so he was both nominated and confirmed after carter lost. think about that. after carter lost the election and after democrats lost the senate. and republicans did not try to block him. they

justice breyer's was 87-nine.so after the all-out partisan attacks on bork and thomas, republicans took a step back from the brink. i've been criticized by some for my role in suggesting justices ginsburg and breyer to president clinton but i believe it was the right thing to do. i was really worried about who he was really going to a point and you can imagine who they would have loved to. refocus when the minority at the time. we could not block president clinton's nominees. size interest in getting the best people we possibly could, and those two were in my book as good as you could get from that administration. but we could work with the other side to stop the slide into get this, and that's what we did. the confirmation hit the pause. things were relatively calm at the lower court level as well, as well, so much of clinton's presidency. there was some sniping at the fact that nominations were taking longer to process, a a practice the democrats had begun under georgia h. w. bush. the confirmation vote were gen

but -- and maybe we should -- justice breyer's idea -- but congress didn't do that. >> i think, your honor, congress in saying when meant -- when means in the common sense, within a reasonable time of the event happening. we go to the dictionary definition as. >> let me follow up on the chief justice's point, reasonable immediacy is different from reasonable time in your view. >> i think the ninth circuit used reasonable degree of immediacy and promptly interchangeably. and as -- as the b.i.a. again said when connotes immediacy as judge baron pointed oh out when connotes immediacy. that's the dictionary definition. but i want to say one more thing to you justice kavanaugh. remember that subsection c, mandatory detention without any individual hearing is written as an exception to subsection a. so the only consequence is you get a hearing. and so the bad ones as justice breyer said, the baddies will be detained is there. >> the problem is that congress did not trust those hearings for is a certain class -- is my understanding -- and correct me if i'm wrong about that. but congress was

it seems to me, justice breyer is right.that the reasonable effort to comply with the terms of the command. but i do not see how we can set a temporal limit to that reasonable effort in the way that you are promoting. >> i think you can justice sotomayor, because again i'm trying to stay true to the war that congress wrote to congress used the phrase, when the alien is released. which as everyone acknowledges, has a temporal component. they did not write a statute that pegged mandatory detention to some kind of good faith or reasonable effort. standard for the government. and to give a counter example, let's say -- i want to say first, i agree with you. but the record here, this and other civil rights groups show that most of the people who are picked up years later, like mr. sanchez rodriguez who was detained many years after release from criminal custody. at home. these people are being picked up as the judge in the ninth circuit noted in oral argument, in front of the house mowing the lawn. at the job, sometimes in an int

and m we say six months. . >> i think justice breyer i think months would be an extraordinary amount of time and a little far afield from the words congress chose and i remind you the board of immigration appeals said 48 hours was too long. if the court wishes to draw a line as you did in that case i think that is fine but we should follow the words that congress wrote. >> thank you. . >> i have a couple of points. the key question is not the meaning of when but who are the aliens described in paragraph one and the answer is any alien with the requisite criminal history at the time is not relevant. >> that exclusion they did not say paragraph one they said the entire paragraph. why is the verb or adverb part of the noun? in that situation? because if they want to limit it to that class that is the easiest thing to have done to list 1226 a then they would've said that. >> a couple of responses but the main one is that the phrase when the alien is released it doesn't modify who it is that is already been fully described. >> when he is released identifies the alien they are looking at b

breyer breyer: what do you think? that is, what does the state think about the standard, which perhaps would be an addition to ford or panetti, which was mentioned, if the two -- and it's not exclusive, but if two things are true; one, he does not recall his crime; and, second, he has a severe inability to orient himself to time or place, which means the kinds of things that were described. yes, i recognize you today; tomorrow i can't, not a clue, not a clue where anything is, though sometimes he answers the right questions. that's what i mean by that. but you heard the words. so judging going back to the eighth amendment and using the rationale of ford, not the words, and panetti, is there a -- would you accept the fact that such a person cannot be executed under the eighth amendment? and, if not, what's the difference? your honor, the difference is -- is that, under ford and panetti, madison has an understanding of what matters. justice breyer: no, no, i'm not saying -- i understand that the words i just used are di

justice breyer: all sorts of things. and so we could litigate each case, case by case, or you answer what -- -mr. stevenson: yes, that's right. the rule i -- i would argue is that where someone has a disability that renders them incapable of orienting to time or place or rationally understanding the circumstances of their offense, they are incompetent. and there has been no reliable determination of rational understanding of the circumstances here, because the court was unwilling to consider any evidence about that mental state that was outside the scope of insanity, delusion, or psychosis. and we think, as the eleventh circuit did, when you accept dementia as a relevant basis for coming to that conclusion, the eleventh circuit had no difficulty finding that heritage 's clearly incompetent. even the dissenting judge starts his dissent "mr. madison is clearly incompetent." justice alito: when you back -- when you went back to the trial court, you emphasized the events concerning kirkwood. what is his situation now? mr. st

chief justice roberts, justice kagan, justice -- justice breyer. they don't like being perceived as republicans or democrats. to the extent this process which is inherently political has gotten more political than normal, that has to be something are very unhappy about. >> assuming judge kavanaugh does make it to the court and become adjusted, what have we learned from clarence thomas experience on what basis judge kavanaugh if he does become adjusted into the future. >> well, justice thomas is not the most conservative justice at least in the top two along with justice gorsuch. he may have been that anyway, but it certainly the case after his experience, his views are dim and solidify. that may have been impart an effective the confirmation process, which over the years he did allude to, suggesting that it is still had an effect on him. and they have an effect on justice kavanagh. really hard to say because it is a personal thing. other justices about more difficult. confirmation processes and not been affected in quite the same way. n of course v

. investigation, president clinton nominatedjustice breyer.med 87 to nine. supreme court justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. perhaps most notably in the united states versus nixon, three nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. judge kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. he has stated that marbury versus madison, and the united states versus nixon are some of the greatest supreme court cases in history. what did he have in common? each of them is a case where congress served as a check on presidential power. i would note that the fourth case judge kavanaugh has pointed to as one of the greatest in history was brown versus the board of education. 0ne kavanaugh decision illustrates the point to bring the check on presidential power directly. he wrote the opinion in a case that challenges the british's military execution of 0sama bin ladin. this conviction was very important to the bush administration. but judge kavanaug

then they were reminded justice kagan, breyer and souter were all confirmed during midterm election years and that argument evaporated. next, democrats said the process should be delayed because too few documents were available from judge kavanaugh's past public service. then they received the most pages of documents ever produced for supreme court nomination, so guess what camet next year or goalposts move down the field and democrats called for a delay because they were too many documents for them to read. i wish this fight could remain in the realm of normalcy but when none of these tactics work, when judge kavanaugh demonstrated his wife acknowledged brilliance open-mindedness and collegiality at his confirmation hearings, some chose a darker road. the politics of personal destruction will willfully unleashed. i spoke at length about the under headways senate democrats are treated dr. ford and are allegation, and brief or six weeks dr. ford's confidential account passed from one democratic member of congress to the democratic side of the judiciary committee to the washington, d.c. law

then they were reminded that justices kagan, breyer and suter are all confirmed during even-numbered years, and that a all e evaporated. next the process should be delayed because too few documents were available from judge kavanaugh's past public service. well, then they received the most pages of documents ever priced for a supreme court nomination, so guess what came next? the goalpost moved down the field, and the democrats called forhe delay because there were o many documents for them to read. i wish this fight could have remained in the realm of normalcy. but when none of these tactics worked, when judge kavanaugh demonstrated his widely-acknowledged brilliance, onen mindedness and collegiality at his confirmation hearings, some chose a darker road. the politics of personal destruction were willfully unleashed. i've spoken at length about the underhanded way senate democrats have treated dr. ford and her allegation. in brief, for six weeks dr. ford's confidential account passed from one democratic member of congress to democratic side of the judiciary committee, to washington,

justice breyer just very wisely stayed away from the news unfolding a few blocks away from us today. we are not going to we will dive right in. i knew that this would be a timely conversation to be having. i don't think any of us could have predicted quite the national debate we would be engaged in this week today. assault, andand rage, and the truth. there and throw a question, just a quick response from both of you, where too?e in the ark of me where does this kavanaugh-christine blasey ford is it? bookrvey weinstein was a and come are we have the end of act one come act two? where do we stand? >> thanks to the long-standing leadership like women like toronto burke and and anita hill , and over the course of the last year, the incredible courage on the part of thousands of survivors who have come forward to speak their truths, we are finally having a cultural conversation about the reality of sexual assault and harassment in our society. a truth telling that is long overdue and profound. leaderstarting to see in the private sector and in government really respond to that truth tell

or compare the early '90s when justice breyer and i were appointed. or the '80s when justice scalia was appointed. the vote for justice scalia was unanimous, as the vote in favor of my confirmation was 96-3. that, despite the many years of my life when i was affiliated with the aclu. not a single question was asked about that affiliation in my hearing. what a difference that time was from what we are witnessing today. >> do you think the court itself, especially in the past few years with its growing number of 5-4 decisions that are often ideological, do you think that's contributing a bit to the polarization also of the confirmation process? >> it's true that last year there was something close to 35% of the decisions were 5-4 or five mac-3. but look back just one year for that. only 15% of the decisions were 5-4. so we will see this term, shakes up. >> shall see. so i want to completely change the subject for a minute here and ask about the increasing number of cases that require high level of scientific and technological expertise. in one case, for

supreme court justices okayingen, sotomayor, ginsburg, roberts, breyer and so on. kavanaugh seemed to dial back a lot of that rhetoric that we saw during his hearing. some of the other notables we should mention in the room right now is justice kavanaugh's wife and children. also one thing i want to note, mitch mcconnell came into the room, i thought that was interesting because he actually came in to a standing ovation before the standing ovation that we're seeing right now. the doors opening up behind me, we'll see the president and the supreme court justice brett kavanaugh in just a few moments, obviously, kate, this is a big moment for president trump. people are calling this a win for him, of course. that all depends on how justice kavanaugh performs on the high court. >> the president of the united states accompanied by the honorable anthony m. kennedy and justice brent m. kavanaugh. [ crowd cheering ] >> thank you very much. members of congress, members of the cabinet, honored guests and fellow americans. it is my privilege to address you tonight from the ea

energy secretary rick perry, patagonia is rick ridgeway and former supreme court justice stephen breyer. they spoke at the atlantic festival in washington d.c. last week. altogether this runs about an hour and 25 minutes. [applause] >> everybody -- >> i'm going to get in big trouble. >> i've been wanting to get on that side of the couch this whole conference. he is always to my right. mr. secretary, thank you for joining us today. this is the anchor session, we will have other stuff going on. >> you could do better. >> let me start off. you know, i went through probably nine months of the presidents tweets last night. he doesn't tweet very much about you. are you disappointed? >> guest: that's a good thing. keeping a low profile, you know -- >> host: you didn't even make fear? >> guest: that's good. 40 years of public service so i've kind of been through the gambit of all the exposure and what have you. as i was sharing with you, the greatest job i ever had in my life was being made the governor of texas and i retired from that and had made the decision that i was done with public servi

scalia, breyer, thomas, ginsburg. times, so specific, so exacting. pretty much these days, they get what they are expecting. points.ake some good the most recent one who didn't would be george h. w. bush, who put david souter on, where his chief of staff famously said he would be a home run for conservatives. nevermind. david souter voted for gay rights, for abortion rights. he was very strong on the liberal side. he came on pretty much in a different form, but was not the product of a vetting process that scalia was the process of or that chief justice john roberts and samuel alito work. -- was not as committed to the process. he were still alive, he might've said, david souter was fine, probably. he didn't really have an agenda he wanted to put on the court in a way that he would be expressing a lot of disappointment right now. ronald reagan never expressed disappointment in how sandra day o'connor turned out, and the talking about -- how he evolved. but they mostly get what they want. >> sort of the reasons we are getting judges and justices these

breyer. justice alito. justice sotomayor. thank you. justice kagan. thank you. justice gorsuch. would also like to send our eep appreciation to maureen, the wife of the late, great and also to our mcgahn.use counsel done thank you. we are thrilled to be joined justice justice anthony kennedy. justice kennedy, america owes you a profound debt of gratitude for a lifetime of novel service our nation, and i want to thank you very much. thank you. a very special and treasured tsh e have very special and treasured guests are justice kavanaugh's amazing wife ashley. thank you, ashley. and their two beautiful margaret and liza. (applause). >> and we are also joined by [applause]vanaugh's mom and dad, i would like to begin tonight's preceding differently than perhaps ever any event of such magnitude. on behalf of our nation, i want to apologize to britain and the entire cavanaugh family for the terrible pain in suffering you have been forced to endure. those who stepped forward to serve our country deserve a fair not agnified evaluation, campaign of political and personal instruction bas

justice breyer. thank you. justice alito. justice sotomayor. thank you. justice kagan. thank you., justice gorsuch. [applause] i would also like to send our deep appreciation to maureen, scalia, the wife of the late, great anthony scalia, and also to our white house counsel done mcgahn. thank you. [applause] we are thrilled to be joined this evening by justice anthony kennedy. justice kennedy, america owes you a profound debt of gratitude for a lifetime of novel service -- of noble service to our nation, and i want to thank you very much. thank you. [applause] very special and treasured guests tonight. we have very special and treasured guests are justice kavanaugh's amazing wife, ashley. thank you, ashley. [applause] and their two beautiful daughters, margaret and liza. [applause] and we're also joined by justice kavanaugh's mom and dad, martha and ed, thank you. [applause] pres. trump: i would like to begin tonight's preceding differently than perhaps ever -- perhaps any other event of such magnitude. on behalf of our nation, i want to apologize to brett and the entire kavanaugh

nobody asked who i think on the court most behaves in a way -- i think it would be stephen breyer andhe is considered one of the liberals but to a certain extent roberts exhibit some of the traits i would hope for breyer and among them has voted to uphold more acts of congress than any of the others. i did hear alana kagan at a law school in california recently told students that in the tide court she would expect, didn't say hope, she would expect more minimalism, more gradualism, more restraint in much the way the court behaved in spring of 2016 and later 2016-2017 where the court had eight justices. >> that is why people are seriously talking about the value of an even number court. if madison jumped down here madison would say you want to force them to compromise, and institutional makers and that will force them to compromise. >> the idea that the party in power, trump says we have to hold the supreme court as if it is a superlegislature. the idea the party in power, the one that blocked merrick garland, the one that is ram rotting brett kavanaugh through confirmation, the idea t

. >> you are answering justice breyer, yes, that all 300,000 of those, whatever the number is, of those delegations are wrong? >> no. that's absolutely not our position. >> so what distinguishes those, that delegation or those delegations from the example that justice alito gave? >> in each of the prior delegations that this court has upheld, there has actually been some standard in the delegation provision even if it was what the court might consider to be a broad area. >> is there a standard here? it's not the attorney general, it's the congress that defines what will require registration, where and when the individual is required to register and what information is necessary, and the penalty for failure to register, all that is specified by congress. we are not at liberty to proscribe when, where, how, all that is done by congress. >> but none of those very detailed provisions of sorna that congress set forth apply to pre-act offenders. the attorney general was given the power both to decide whether the law applied to pre-act offenders and then how it should apply. >> that goes back

alexander, blunt, breyer, cassidy, collins, corker, corning, cotton, crypto, cruise, envy, bounced, fishermoran, paul, portman, roberts, rounds, rubio, scott, shelby, sullivan, to me, wicker, young. senators voting in the negative... baldwin, bennett, blumenthal, booker, brown, carden, casey, koons, donnelly, duckworth, durban, weinstein, julie brand, harris, hasan, renault, kane, king, clover chart, markey, mendez, merkley, mary, nelson, peters, reeve, sanders, shots, schumer, shaheen, smith, tester, you‘d all, van holland, warner, warren, white house, waiting. mr murphy. no. you‘re watching a live scenes of the us senate as this confirmation vote has taken place, we have heard a list of those in the affirmative, those who are voting forjudge kavanaugh to be the next us supreme court judge, kavanaugh to be the next us supreme courtjudge, and kavanaugh to be the next us supreme court judge, and then kavanaugh to be the next us supreme courtjudge, and then we have heard a list in the negative, we are hearing on reuters that the majority have voted in the support of the supreme court nominee

kavanagh's confirmation highlights the deep split in america head of november's midterm elections breyer with a poll back and said no facts matter we actually need to see what we have hard evidence on that might hurt long term the women's movement here in the united states as many women were supporting the supporting the accuser just because they felt like accusers had not been heard recently in the united states this is one year to the day of the need to move men happening on the other hand in the end people who needed to make sure there was evidence and i think that's the reason why you saw so many g.o.p. senators who were might have been wavering actually go on and push the confirmation for do you think we can equate support for. support for trump himself they're going to try to whether that's true or not it's up to everybody i don't think this issue has won people over to cross over the lines and either before or against president trump it just shows how deeply divided america is right now and that's very interesting four weeks out from a midterm election for president trump everythi

counsel robert fisk was named to lead the whitewater investigation, president clinton nominated justice breyer. .e was confirmed 87-9; supreme court justices have not hesitated to rule against the president to nominated them. perhaps most notably in the united states v. nixon, three nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. judge kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. he has stated that marbury v. madison, youngstown steel v. s awyer, and the united states v. nixon are three of the four greatest supreme court cases in history. what do they have in common? each of them is a case where congress serves as a check on presidential power. i would note that the fourth case that judge kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was brown v. the board of education. one kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. a casee the opinion in that challenges the bush administration's military commission prosecution of an associate of osama bin laden. this conviction was very import

justice scalia, justice pryor -- breyer and justice stevens. we have law which you can find by googling it. we try to keep people abreast of what's happening at the supreme court. at a level that would of interest the sort kaetd observer -- educated observer but not in a terrible lawyerly way. >> a call from whiches whiches. >> i was wondering if has there been a member of the other party that with held things until the last week of the vote. and if you accused me of rape -- he was calm compared to the way i would be reacting. you can't accuse someone of something and not expect them to fight back. i'll hang up and listen. >> i don't think it is true that we don't expect people to stay calm when they are accused of things. we expect criminals to stay calm and it cludz those who -- includes those who may have been wrongly accused. i'm not that sympathetic to the way that judge kavanaugh expressed his emotions was appropriate or understand. i understand him being angry but him being rangery -- angry at the senators. minimum wage if a prosecutor d

i handled the supreme court nomination of stephen breyer which, at that time, was hardly controversial looking back on it, it was a cakewalk. then i went from there to the clinton white house. i have seen this world as a former federal prosecutor, as a white house judiciary committee aid, and a white house lawyer. what did you think about the scope of what this white house gave the fbi looking into judge kavanaugh? guest: there is a lot that is not understood about the background check process. thought because i i should lay it out as someone who's been on both sides of this . background checks are not full-fledged criminal investigations. the fbi is a tool to look into the background of potential nominees. they serve a double purpose. first they help the president assad who to nominate. -- the president decide who to nominate. everyone 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

here is part of the conference, beginning with supreme court justice stephen breyer.applause] michael: good morning. i think the reason i have been asked to be on this stage with you is because normally, when you are on the stage, i am out there. they probably don't know that every year, the theater company does two mock trials of plays

ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer were confirmed with a large bipartisan vote. i think it will be a cooling-off period. the senators have gotten it out of their system. the republicans were saying this can't happen again, this character assassination can't happen again. we will see if there is a democratic president and the appoint someone whom the republicans don't like or change the balance of the court. will they refrain from attacks? kaganave justice elena and sonia sotomayor -- they were not too tough on either of those justices when obama nominated them. they tend to go a little easier. my prediction is we see a cooling-off period. the reason this was such a contentious fight is it was so close to the midterm election following a very divisive presidential election. eventually it would alter the balance of the court -- potentially it would alter the balance of the court. divisivede, the most decision in recent history. it made it a perfect storm. i don't think it will be quite as nasty the next couple of times, but who knows? host: there are no permanent r

french speaking speak french because in southwestern cameroon hiper morgan traveled to the town of breyer at the heart of the conflict. last three combat came face to face with men who said they were english speaking separatist fighters they accused him of supporting and spying for the french dominated government and he was to be punished he said there's two options and with two for one now. one on our board my shit from you guys have my shit and give down so our side may. then i don't my friends know is that enough is just here to. term i made my house beside me i fighting in cameroon southwest and northwest parted in twenty sixteen when english speakers in the two regions accused the french dominated government of marginalisation the angle for its make up about twenty percent of cameron's twenty four million population a group of small fighters took up arms against the government demanding independence. it's not clear how many fighters the specialist groups have some estimate the number to be about a thousand and as they continue to battle the government if the civilian four caught up i

every sitting supreme court justice, chief justice roberts, justice thomas justice ginsburg justice breyer justice alito, justice sotomayor, justice kagan, justice gorsuch. (applause). i would also like to send our deep appreciation to maureen scalia the wife of the late justice scalia and to our white house counsel. thank you. we are thrilled to be join this evening by justice anthony kennedy. justice kennedy, america owes you a profound debt of gratitude for a lifetime of noble service to our nation and i want to thank you very much. thank you. (applause). very special and treasured guests are justice kavanaugh's amazing wife ashley. thank you, ashley. (applause). their two beautiful daughters margaret and liza. (applause). and we are also joined by justice kavanaugh's mom and dad. thank you. (applause). i would like to begin tonight's proceedings differently than any other event of such magnitude. i want to apologize to brett and the entire kavanaugh family for the pain and suffering you have been forced to endure. those who stepped forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignif

david souter, ruth bader , theyrg, stephen breyer were sworn in at the white house. in each case, i didn't go. i did swear in john roberts because i strongly approved of the appointment. i thought he was the appointment. i still think he is an excellent chief justice, even though i disagree with the number of his rulings, but he is a very fine person. i thought that if i did not go to the white house on his swearing in, it would create an impression that he did not approve of the appointment which was not true with the others. so i did go to the white house and swear him in at that time. and i think that was the right thing to do. >> the obama appointments were held in the supreme court. hon. stevens: yes. obama follow the correct practice in this regard. justice stevens wrote an opinion piece on a case that is somehow relevant, and that was the bill clinton versus paul a jones case. aur opinion basically said sitting president is not immune from civil prosecution or civil litigation, and can be held accountable while serving as president. the same way about a presid

just another point, justice breyer, he was arrested at stanford for underage drinking.e made any stink about that at all. total double standard. >> juan: i see. he denied it and said he was a quire bar -- choir boy? >> jesse: no one called him a raging alcoholic. >> juan: democrat say thursday when capital was testifying, he is talking about clinton conspiracy theories like he's a right-wing radio talk show host. >> dana: conservative start in a whole and they have these conversations because they usually based things on logic and fact and not emotion. if you show emotion, then you are either hysterical or crazy or angry or mad. i think if you want to talk about temperament, he testified for 31 hours that week, several days in front of the committee. remember all the protesters screaming in the background? he never once -- the only time that he decided he had to show what he really felt, he had to lay it all out on the line, that's not about judicial temperament. that was about his reputation. >> judge jeanine: everyone said if you respond the way you did with martha ma

we go now to a federal prosecutor who clerked for supreme court justice breyer.some sound, house speaker paul ryan commenting on this moments ago. >> well, you obviously cannot do that. you cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. we didn't like it when obama liked changing immigration laws with executive action. as conservatives we believe in the constitution. as a conservative, i'm a believer in willing following t text of the constitution and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process. but where we obviously totally agree with the president is getting at the root issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration. >> so again, to quote speaker ryan, this obviously cannot be done, correct? >> no, that's exactly right. there is no precedent, no legal authority, no legitimate basis to this suggestion. the last time this argument was taken seriously was literally dre dread scott. it would require an amendment to the constitution to try to open the door to evaporate birthright citizenship. >> gor gloria borger, you were writing

for --s is celebrated include who attended stephen breyer and retired justice anthony kennedy. past, justices entered and exited through a side entrance. attendees also included attorney general jeff sessions and solicitor general knoll francisco.- noel >> we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! we believe survivors! >> we believe christine ford! we believe anita hill! we believe christine ford! ,> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. monday morning, supreme court reporter for bloomberg news talks about the start of the new supreme court term. fox news political analyst juan williams on his new book, "what the hell do you have to lose: trumps war on civil rights." be sure to watch what she did journal, lie that 7:00 eastern -- sure to watch washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern. >> t

justice breyer. thank you, justice. justice alito. justice sotomayor. thank you. justice kagan. thank you. and justice gorsuch. [applause] >> i would always like to send our deep appreciation to scalia, the wife of the late great antonin scalia and also to our white house counsel don mcgahn. thank you, don. [applause] >> we are thrilled to be joined this evening by justice anthony kennedy. justice kennedy, america owes you a profound debt of gratitude for a lifetime of noble service to our nation and i want to thank you very much. [applause] >> very special and treasured guests tonight are justice kavanaugh's amazing wife ashley. thank you, ashley. [cheers and applause] >> and their two beautiful daughters, margaret and liza. [cheers and applause] >> and we are also joined by justice kavanaugh's mom and dad, martha and ed. thank you. [applause] >> i would like to begin tonight's proceeding differently than perhaps any other event of such magnitude. on behalf of our nation, i want to apologize to brett and the entire kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have b

started they said they will wait and he said if i chairman they will not take it up so what if justice breyer orr somebody steps down? . >> because of what a lot of republicans said last time aroundhehe it would be hard to take up another nomination in 2020 but we know from experience that the court issue mobilizes a more conservative base from the democrats and liberals and that isn't something we should be afraid of. shannon: as a member of the liberal wing clearly with the way they are viewed if it is one of those and they step down you don't worry it will li irate a lot of heat quite. >> i have great confidence in the american people to look at the issue to decide competently in the elections. shannon: now he's hurt a couple of cases with justice kavanaugh an enormous workload that people don't understand can he just move ahead with her always be this *-asterisk by his name? . >> i have known him 25 years. he is a person of tremendous strength, courage and forbearance. he has a beautiful family and a very strong wife i think he will make it through this. much the same way clarence thomas

. >> and the democrats didn't go in the breyer patch when it was the idea of 2ru6rtrump being impeached>> let's me play what nancy pelosi said. take a listen. >> people care about what happens to them in their lives. sthee t they see the cost of health care, a paycheck that doesn't go as far takes should. they doubt whether their voice counts for much because big special interests weighing in. >> she is probably right. >> absolutely. and the frooutruth is it only t one undisciplined democrat or a partisan liberal to make some--6 write some op-ed about impeachment. i think ultimately the four bikes is t-- 9 weeks is the problem. in trump's america, four bikes is -- weeks is four years. people will get bore and they will have to be something else -- >> let me bring up two events. number one, the denver debate in 2012. rm enth republican ennews ychl surthune. and access hollywood was the other way. is that -- are we experiencing something like that? or after the world clears will we have a better sense? >> a mid term a different than a presidential race. fundamentals are baked in. we have

he might even try to get kagan and stephen breyer on his side to form a majority for these decisions.think that's right we saw that after justice scalia died and there was this centrist coalition. just because roberts is the medium though. he is a conservative but he's a - - it takes several cases to move in a particular direction so he is certainly not looking off the bat to overturn cases are set broad precedents. >> because he's the chief, he has an ability to steer opinions to certain judges who might write a more minimalist opinion. >> that's right point he only gets one vote but if he's in the majority, he will assign the writing. we have to be careful if it's five or six of the majority he makes an assignment and it turns out the other three or four things that's too narrow, he will lose his plurality effectively. >> right. appreciate you coming in. still ahead, the brett kavanaugh confirmation coming weeks before the midterm election. does it move the poll numbers and key races? we will ask karl rove, next. that's tough to do. schwab does it. next question. do you offer a sati

counsel robert fisk was named to lead the whitewater investigation, president clinton nominated justice breyer. he was confirmed 87-9. supreme court justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. perhaps most notably in the united states versus nixon, three nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. judge kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. he has stated that marbury versus madison, youngstown steel versus sawyer and the united states versus nixon are three of the four greatest supreme court cases in history. what do they have in common? each of them is a case where congress served as a check on presidential power. and i would note that the fourth case that judge kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was brown versus the board of education. one kavanaugh decision illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. he wrote the opinion in a case that challenges the bush administration's military commission prosecution of an associate of osama bin l

counsel robert fisk was named to lead the whitewater investigation, president clinton nominated justice breyer. he was confirmed 87-9. supreme court justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them. perhaps most notably in the united states versus nixon, three nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him. judge kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. he has stated that marbury versus madison, youngstown steel versus sawyer and the united states versus nixon are three of the four greatest supreme court cases in history. what do they have in common? each of them is a case where congress serves as a check on presidential power. and i would note that the fourth case that judge kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was brown versus the board of education. one of kavanaugh's decisions illustrates the point about the check on presidential power directly. he wrote the opinion in hamdunn versus the united states, a case that challenges the bush administration's military commission pr

then there was a period of time common sense prevailed and ginsburg and breyer were approved almost unanimouslyf a sudden george bush gets elected president, the supreme court decides he ought to be president, instead of recounting millions and millions of votes, and that is when schumer gave his speech and that's why the well has been poisoned sense. >> martha: last question. mary garland is someone that a lot of people point to as the beginning of the most recent poisoning of this process. if there is an opening on the court, in the election year, in 2,020, do you believe that the senate should take up a nomination during that period? >> if i'm chairman, they won't take it up, because i pledged that in 2016, if the bulb is the same as it is -- you know of someone else's in the committee, they have to decide for themselves. but that's a decision i made a long time ago. >> martha: thank you very much senator grassley. so what exactly four weeks to go until some of that could all be shaken up, the "the story" senr cameras to indiana today to see how the kavanaugh effect is playing out in the sen

justice breyer. justice alito. justice sotomayor war. justice kagan. and justice gorsuch. [applause] i would also like to send our deep appreciation to marine scalia, the wife of the late, great antonin scalia, and also to our white house counsel, don mcgann. [applause] we are thrilled to be joined this evening by justice anthony kennedy. justice kennedy, america owes you a profound debt of gratitude for a lifetime of noble service to our nation. and i want to thank you very much. [applause] very special and treasured guests tonight are justice kavanaugh's amazing wife, ashley. thank you, ashley. [applause] and their two beautiful daughters, margaret and liza. [applause] and we are also joined by justice kavanaugh's mom and dad to come up ed. thank you. [applause] i would like to begin for knights proceeding differently than perhaps any other event of magnitude. on behalf of the nation, i'd like to apologize to brad and the entire a kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you've been forced to endure. those who stepped forward to to serve our country deserve a