neither was cavanaugh. cavanaugh, they cut the fbi off from investigating him further.hey have thousands of tips they were not even responding to because they were told not to by the justice department and by the president. the fbi cut down the investigation. they pushed him through. the deal they did -- host: do you have a question? caller: the question is, how come every time the democrats have somebody up, we go through this dog and pony show? when republicans come up, these last couple, they have been taking advantage of the situation. host: melanie campbell? guest: those in power push the nominees. one thing about this administration, they have put a lot more judges on. in this administration, in some cases that is historic. but i agree that a lot of times you can see some biases where the democratic party -- no judgment, just what i see. we as democrats go overboard in trying to find balance on the other site of the i/o, very different. at this point, what i have seen has been strong support for her from the white house. and from the democrats in the senate who ar

lindsey got a lot of restorative use from what he did around the cavanaugh hearings.p wanted to golf with him every weekend after those hearings. so that made him a superstar on the right. the last thing i want to say about this, you understand that this justice, while sitting on the court, had two cases in front of her that were highly politically charged. if she was what lindsey graham says, she would have ruled against the people trying to get hillary clinton's emails, and she would have ruled with the people trying to stop the wall. instead, she did just the opposite. she said you're entitled to the emails, and she said there's nothing in this lawsuit that stops the wall. so this is not a political judge. and graham knows it. >> and the thing that's so infuriating about it, it feels like just because he's mad and in his feelings about, you know, cavanaugh, it's not anything else's fault but his. but he wants to put an asterisks on this justice that she barely got through. do you anticipate nibble but susan colins? -- anybody but susan colins? there's a dozen repub

more experience than now justice barrett did, and also more experience than justices gorsuch and cavanaughou include all of judge jackson's experience both in the private sector and in government and on the bench. >> reporter: despite her elite legal pedigree, jackson comes from a modest background. she was born in 1970 in washington, d.c., but raised in miami where she attended public schools. her father, a teacher and later county board attorney. her mother was a public high school principal. >> my father in particular bears responsibility for my interest in the law. my very earliest memories are of watching my father study. he had his stack of law books on the kitchen table while i sat across from him with hi stack of coloring books. >> reporter: jackson, like eight current justices, has an ivy league education, graduating in the top of her class at harvard and serving in the harvard law review. >> justice breyer, the members of the senate will decide if i fill your seat, but please know that i could never fill your shoes. >> reporter: she would bring fresh experience to the high court

i watched the cavanaugh hearing and it was definitely not fair and it was biased and i would be disappointed if they go that route again. guest: 100% agree. i think that something you will not see today. you're not, see all the crazy protesters dressed up in cosplay outside. you are knocking to see personal smears being brought against the nominee. i think that all should be completely abandoned by whatever party. we have seen one party only engaging in those kinds of attacks on the politics of personal destruction and i think brett kavanaugh and justice thomas's confirmation hearings stand out historically as examples of that. this will not happen now and i would never support it happening grade that doesn't mean we just let the nominee through the whole time because it is a serious debate and we need to revise in our country the ability to have a serious discussion, to engage with real facts and to even disagree about them in a way that still civil. it doesn't mean you have to vote for every single person. but it can still be a civil discussion that really gets at the meat of the issue and

don't want this to become a spectacle, as they say, the consummation hearing construction read, read cavanaugh was a few years ago. for example, when he was accused of sexual misconduct. they say that they don't want that to happen, although we have seen some of the parameters off the attack. so these lisa critical questioning, she will be facing in the coming days. first of all, that she was once a public defender, that is a lawyer who is given to an accused person. if, if that person can't can't get a lawyer themselves. so therefore, the intimation is constantly what she's soft on crime. she's also on the independent sentencing commission which reduced the sentences for some drug offenses. but then we also see more, more general argument that, but she's part of a general moved by the democrats against law and order itself, which is like a theme moving into the mid terms. i think that's really what, what they're looking at here is, is, will continue with theme because in fact, jackson's nomination is all but assured, the democrats don't need any republicans. so insult, in some ways what we're

most of us could not go back to our offices during cavanaugh without getting spit on. hope that does not happen to y'all. i don't think it will. as to the historic nature, i understand, but when i get lectured about this from my democratic colleagues i remember janice rogers brown that was filibustered by the same people. remember miguel estrada? one of the most finest people i have ever met. completely wiped out. could not make it to the gang of the support team. he did not make the cut. if you are hispanic or african-american conservative, it is about your philosophy. now it is going to be about the historic nature of the pick. the bottom line is when it is about philosophy when it is somebody of color on our side, we are all racist if we ask hard questions. that is not going to fly with us. we are used to it by now, at least i am. it is not going to matter to us. we are going to ask you what you think and senator hawley, you need to ask about her record as a district court judge. i hope you do. we will see what she says. play the fair game. president biden had a cho

neither was cavanaugh. they have thousands of tips they would not even respond to because they were told not to buy the justice department and by the president. the fbi cut down the investigation. host: do you have a question? caller: the question is, how come every time the democrats have somebody up, we go through this dog and pony show? when republicans come up, these last couple, they have been taken advantage of the situation. host: melanie campbell? guest: those in power push the nominees. one thing about this administration, they have put a lot more judges on. in some cases that is historic. when you have nominees, from the democratic party, democrats go overboard on trying to find out on the other side of the aisle -- at this point i have seen strong support for her from the white house. the senate is ultimately responsible for pushing her candidacy through. host: joe in tennessee for republicans. you are next. caller: good morning, melanie. it is amazing how people cannot get over the fact, leave t

you brought up amy coney barrett and rhett cavanaugh. how do we change the process so that neither side has the complaints that you are bringing up about them? how do we change the process so it is fair and everyone is happy? caller: we have had seven decades -- host: we are talking about the confirmation process so that all nominees get a fair shot from the judiciary committee? caller: the issue is this. people will complain that the questions are being rude and offensive. then the democrats were rude and offensive to brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. host: how do we change the process. both sides have complaints. how do we change the process so it is fair to everyone? caller: it's about honesty. host: how do we make it honest for both sides? caller: the issue isn't changing the process. the american people listening to the confirmation hearings need to be informed. it's the issues. it's not about personalities. it's about addressing the issues. host: how do we make sure that those issues come up and it's not a political process li

let's talk about the confirmation hearings of cavanaugh or thomas. brought to tears during those hearings for the only time i see her cry during this rings is when she's talkin about how proud she is of proud she is of her skin color and race. it's demeaning to hear that she should be given softballs and have been easy hearing because of being born the way that she is. that seems to be the prevailing narrative on the left red. >> to be protected and not just treated as everyone else as usual, the finger is pointed back at them. when they cry racist they are the ones that are racially biased. there was an msnbc contributor johnson who had a fairly interesting characterization of the hearings, watch. >> we all remember clarence thomas said this is a high-tech lynching have been uppity black man, this is not a lynching, bu it is certainly a flogging because the republicans know they can't stop judge brown jackson from getting in so the only thing they can do now is publicly flogged this intelligent capable qualified black woman to the best of thei abili

unlike the start to the cavanaugh hearings, we did not have repeated interruptions of chairman durbin during his opening statements, as democrats interrupted me for more than an hour of my opening statement of the kavanaugh hearings. in the supreme court nomination, the most important thing that i look for is the nominee pose a few of the law, judicial. philosophy, in view of the role of our constitutional system. i will be looking to whether judge jackson is a defender of the constitution. we all know there is a difference of opinion about the role judges should play. some of us believe judges must interpret the law as understood, or at least not make new law or simply filling back in. those of us who share that view think that, under our constitution, congress and not the federal courts are given the authority to make law and to set policies. now there are others who believe that the court should make policy. the so-called living constitution. they think that the constitution's picks and structures don't limit what they should do. to them, we say it is, quote unquote, "value judgmen

the cavanaugh tensions simmer behind a low-key opening to the hearings.epublicans clearly not over previous judicial wounds is the sub headline. democrats downplay the influence of dark money and traditional groups in the ketanji brown jackson hearing. we want to hear your thoughts. what was your take away? alan, new york, line for democrats. caller: i watched the repeat of the hearings yesterday and i was impressed by one of the statements by a senator. i thought it was very instructive, reminding people about the role of dark money in politicizing republican nominees for the court most of the last four years and it is the height of hypocrisy for republicans to try to claim they are looking for someone who is going to be a nonpolitical nominee from the democrats when they have been nothing but politicizing the process on their side for so long. i found it hard to listen seriously to people like lindsey graham saying we have always had -- then democratic senators have had toward republican nominees. it may have something to do with the fact that democrats

most of us could not go back to our offices during cavanaugh without getting spit on. hope that does not happen to y'all. i don't think it will. as to the historic nature, i understand, but when i get lectured about this from my democratic colleagues i remember janice rogers brown that was filibustered by the same people. remember miguel estrada? one of the most finest people i have ever met. completely wiped out. could not make it to the gang of the support team. he did not make the cut. if you are hispanic or african-american conservative, it is about your philosophy. now it is going to be about the historic nature of the pick. the bottom line is when it is about philosophy when it is somebody of color on our side, we are all racist if we ask hard questions. that is not going to fly with us. we are used to it by now, at least i am. it is not going to matter to us. we are going to ask you what you think and senator hawley, you need to ask about her record as a district court judge. i hope you do. we will see what she says. play the fair game. president biden had a cho

>> gram's questions last were more about the cavanaugh or amy coneet barrett case.s important to remember that gram was very much in a camp that wanted to see judge michelle childs be the person sitting in this seat. he all but said that she would have the support of him and dozens of other republicans. instead, president biden nominated jackson. so we're seeing gram frustrated about his last choice. and we're seeing frustration with this one. that this is not the nominee he wanted. susan collins votes more are. and lindsey graham is the next. could tell us whether he's going to revert the way he votes. or dug in to this nominee. >> and the white house is expecting a win on this. we've said it many times. it's a 50-50 senate. the democrats are holding firm. and obviously, you have the tiebreaking vote from the vice president. but having said that. how concerned are they that even if they're not landing against judge jackson. some of the actions, some of the sound bytes for republicans could be useful in the midterms. >> based on my conversations with white house off

much better than democrats have typically treated republican nominees like clarence thomas and bret cavanaugh. it will be a deep dive into her record. >> harris: let's set up the live movement right now. i want to bring in fox news chief legal correspondent shannon bream. set the stage for us. republicans are perched and it is about to start. >> judge jackson is officially in the room taking her seat getting ready and listen, people you saw her this morning shaking hands, talking with various senators. people who may vote for or against her. she is exceptionally bright and charming and think she will do a good job in the hearing. it is about to officially start. we caught up with her this morning. she lives in d.c. a short trip across town to get her here today and she has been very busy since being announced. meeting with various senators who will eventually vote on her and murder boards where they try to prep her for what she will face this week. republicans are raising questions, josh hawley one of them, who said he wants to probe her on whether she is soft on crime and sentencing decision

this isn't going to be like what the democrats did to justice cavanaugh.. and here you have senators hawley and cruz just saying to her, okay, why you soft on these porn criminals? why do you believe in critical race theory and spread it around through your legal doctrine? it was just so transparently political. >> laura? >> not to mention, of course, we're forgetting before senator lindsey graham stormed off in a huff because he was called to task about the history and the facts he was talking about, he made it very clear about his disdain for double standards. and let's forgive for a moment the irony of senator lindsey graham talking about double standards and trying to educate the first black woman to nominated to the supreme court about double standards in the united states of america. but in doing so he spoke about the idea of how dare people associate because you are a member of a particular organization that you are then assigned and imputed the beliefs of the controversial figures that you invite there. he was very adamant about that not being appr

. >> there were headlines all over the country really accusing judge cavanaugh of being basically billosby. none of us are going to do that to you. and if any of us does that to you, all hell will break out, and it should. >> jimmy: ummm, thanks? i guess. i disagree. i actually think they should treat ketanji brown jackson exactly like they treated brett kavanaugh, and interview every single person who has accused her of sexual assault. don't stop, even though there are none. do not stop. judge jackson would be the first black woman on the supreme court. [ cheering and applause ] she could get confirmed without a single republican vote since the vice president is the tie breaker. which would be the gop's ultimate nightmare having this decided by two black women whose names they can't pronounce. senator ted cruz was actually judge jackson's classmate at harvard law school. though she will not likely get his vote. he pontificated at length today about not turning this into a political circus, and worked in a plug for his podcast while saying that. but the big ted story today was i don't

they specifically with brett cavanaugh, we all know what happened there. but again, this was not about judge jackson. this was about laying a political foundation for castigating the democrats for their work in the confirmation process. and i think even some of. critiques of judge jamal khashoggi's record. that's not about her. it it be and laying a found ace for criticizing the democrats and democratic candidates in 2022 and 2024. this is political theater and judge jackson is unfortunately a pawn in it. >> if the republicans are being savvy, grassley and mcconnell are much closer to anyone else knowing whether they have any democrats to peel off. they certainly played their hand what they thut thought they did, and they explain other bank shots and things they wanted to refer to, too publicly outlandish against the nominee herself. your take on that, emily? >> right. i think to the extent that we all talk, that americans are thinking about this nomination, that it's going to be positive for democrats and get into the particulars of particular defendants,

>> i think stepping back there has been a shift since cavanaugh, and i can tell you that this -- absolutely him. >> i ask both of you to react to this. gene, in the hras last seven years, and let's start with the garland nomination that wasn't. judges are either on my side or on the other side, and nobody feels the judges are in the middle any more, and that's going to be something we will wish we didn't erode. >> i wish it now. i wish we had the view of the judiciary that we used to have. supreme court justices would go and surprise us in many directions, and not as many surprises now. >> yeah, mark murray and i were talking about this this morning, justice gorsuch -- >> yeah, alito and thomas never really surprise. >> and they never will. >> and sotomayor doesn't surprise. >> she's an occasional surprise. >> yes, she is. >> small scale compared to hugo -- >> that's it, we don't have the perception the judiciary is a fair arbiter. >> i would agree. >> yeah, and also, too, though, there's no talking more on the right of this person is turning into a suitor where it's you are just left and -

remember that was cavanaugh.about personal, um, misconduct that came up and so they were hearing questions about sexual misconduct and so forth. um and it won't be the same as with judge barrett when she was nominated because it's not a realigning the balance on the supreme court, so the stakes are not as high the temperatures are probably not going to be as high it's going to be more about, i would say senators looking for opportunities to make, um, telling remarks or get soundbites for their constituents, and it is going to be about um, judge just jackson herself. steve wolpert, professor of politics there at st mary's college in the east. big professor. thank you for your time. have a great evening. my pleasure. already nice looking day today as we got into our monday this whole week looks good. and things changed yesterday are actually saturday. we had a few showers sunday temperatures warmed up, warmed up more. today we had some low eighties was 83 fairfield out by travis air force base, and then we're going

luke nichter, who is the james cavanaugh chair in presidential stud? which is a new program at chapman university and we're joined by the dean of students, dr. jerry price as well a new program at chapman that the foundation has helped to put together and we're really excited about so thank you all for being here. in addition. i want to thank all of our president's council members that are here tonight for their support which makes this evening and all of our evenings like this possible. pleasure of introducing two men who are contributing mightily tonight to american history. and i'm very pleased that c-span is recording tonight's conversation for future broadcasts and the nixon foundation is broadcasting live tonight as well because this conversation will illuminate the richard nixon that these men knew and knew very well. today is the 50th anniversary of the day on which president mrs. nixon departed andrew's air force base. on their way to china and that ensuing week would become known as that which changed the world. dwight chapin was on that plan

. >> senator, i don't have any comment on what procedures took place in this body regarding the cavanaugh hearing. what i would like to answer is your point about my sentencing in child's pornography cases. the point of the guideline is to assist judges in determining what punishment to provide in cases. there are horrible cases, but the idea is that between -- supposed to be providing proportional punishment based on what a person has done. the sentencing scheme doesn't place everybody at the same level. the point of judging and the guidelines is to look at what has happened in a case, compared defendants to each other in terms of what they have done, and give proportional penalties -- >> mr. chairman, she has said, mr. chairman, she does not use sentencing enhancement in the area of someone using a computer -- >> can i explain why, sir? >> i'm going to give the witness is an opportunity to respond to you, senator. >> finally. >> the guidelines true created for child pornography, this crime was primarily being committed by people who were literally mailing one, two, five, ten, 100 photos

the confirmation hearing of judge bret cavanaugh was a few years ago. for example, when he was accused of sexual misconduct. they say that they don't want that to happen, although we have seen some of the parameters off the attacks or the least a critical questioning. she will be facing in the coming days. first of all, that she was once a public defender, that is a lawyer who is given to an accused person. if, if that person can't can't get a lawyer themselves. so therefore, the information is constantly what she's soft on crime. she's also on the independent sentencing commission which reduced the sentences for some drug offenses. so again, it's while you see your but soft on crime out here. however, it's rather difficult to maintain that argument given that you have the endorsement from none other than the fraternal order of police the most, most the most cogent of defenders of what you know, what many others would call police brutality. even so that, that kind of tends to die. but then we also see more pops a more general argument that, but she's pa

weeks now is that we're not expecting the sort of fireworks we saw with the confirmation of bret cavanaugh, for example, who was accused of sexual misconduct. and they were demonstrations throughout and interruptions and so on. partly because what the several reasons would have partly she's already been confirmed 3 times for other very senior positions. she's currently serving on what's thought to be the 2nd most powerful court in the united states with a court of appeals here in dc. she's got have bipartisan bipartisan votes in favor in the past, just very difficult now for people to say, well, she's can pick young qualified. it does seem that having initially flattered with the idea of suggesting which is only being nominated due to affirmative action. that's now not being very favored by some of them, or should we say extreme members of the judicial judiciary committee. the other point is that she's not going to change the political make up of the court, the supreme court if she is confirmed. so there's less stake perhaps in these confirmation hearings, but we are getting some of the pa

when you compare the coverage of barrett and cavanaugh to what we're seeing now with the current nomineerofoundly and patently predictable. >> let's talk about the oscars, shall because apparently the academy awards is going to now disqualify movies that don't have enough black, or disabled actors by twenty twenty four . and you see there is a laundry list now of rules to qualify for the awards like at least 30% of all actors in secondary roles from at least two underrepresented groups have to be included. the film's distribution and finance company must have paid apprenticeships or internships from underrepresented groups. it goes on and on . so this means that no matalan, the one that won best picture last year would have qualified to be nominated. do we care? is this more of the same? what's your take? well, i'm old enough to remember 1998. right. and the oscars that year was hosted by billy crystal and drew 57 million viewers. you know how many people watched last year's show? they couldn't even draw 10 million. so forty seven million people who used to watch this show are gone. and

you brought up amy coney barrett and rhett cavanaugh. how do we change the process so that neither side has the complaints that you are bringing up about them? how do we change the process so it is fair and everyone is happy? caller: we have had seven decades -- host: we are talking about the confirmation process so that all nominees get a fair shot from the judiciary committee? caller: the issue is this. people will complain that the questions are being rude and offensive. then the democrats were rude and offensive to brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. host: how do we change the process. both sides have complaints. how do we change the process so it is fair to everyone? caller: it's about honesty. host: how do we make it honest for both sides? caller: the issue isn't changing the process. the american people listening to the confirmation hearings need to be informed. it's the issues. it's not about personalities. it's about addressing the issues. host: how do we make sure that those issues come up and it's not a political process li

. >> dana: despite largely uncivil hearings for brett cavanaugh and amy coney barrett.ck to our offices and couldn't help but getting spit on with judge cavanaugh. >> good morning. this may be the only time president biden has an opportunity to put someone on the u.s. supreme court to make his mark in history. yesterday judge ketanji brown jackson greeted senators with an opening statement. >> i have been a judge for nearly a decade now and i take that responsibility and my duty to be independent very seriously. i decide cases from a neutral posture. i evaluate the facts and i interpret and apply the laws to the facts of the case before me without fear or favor, consistent with my judicial oath. >> the judge has been non-controversial for the most part. senator josh hawley accused her of going soft on sex offenders that prey on children. >> what concerns me, and i've been very candid about this, in every case, in each of these seven, judge jackson handed down a lenient sentence that was below what the federal guidelines recommended and below what prosecutors requested.

think our republican senators have done a better job of handling her than the democrats did with cavanaugh a disgrace, and i say kudos to the republican senators who questioned her yesterday. they did a much better job than the democrats did with judge kavanaugh. i am definitely against her nomination. host: you said she is an activist judge a couple times. are there other activist justices on the supreme court bench right now? caller: yes, there are. and i do not think we need another one. the two ladies that are there are still activist judges. her especially. these were cases brought up by the republicans, and i think if some of the democrat senators, when they vote, they need to look at their states and who they are represented, just like marsha black and said, she represents the state of tennessee, and they need to look at the people they representing and vote in accordance to what those people believe. host: there are three women on the supreme court, and you say the two ladies, justice barrett, justice kagan, justice sotomayor. who do you refer to? caller: not justice barrett. justi

does it fit into scalia's originalism, cavanaugh's textualism? is a conservative? i have discovered the answer. during the course of your time as judge, you have written opinions, 573 to be exact and they more or less express your view of the law as the facts are presented to you in each of those cases. some 12,000 pages from the sentencing commission, for most of us as elected senators people ask " what is your philosophy?" and we pointed to our voting record. this committee is delving into everything you have published. would you like to comment at the outset for people looking for a label what your position is on judicial philosophy? judge brown-jackson: thank you, mr. chairman. over the course of my almost decade on the bench, i have developed a methodology that i used to ensure that im ruling impartially and i am adhering to the limits of my judicial authority. i am acutely aware that as a judge in our system, i have limited power and i am trying in every case to stay in my lane,. what i do is i essentially follow three steps. the first step is when i get a ca

justice cavanaugh had written 306. senators have an unbelievably wealth of writings to examine.ustice barrett in three years on the seventh circuit she had already written 91 appellate opinions . not to mention her many academic writings on constitutional law. judge jackson's written a total of two circuit court opinions. just two. the only real body of evidence for the senate is a record as a trial judge. like i mentioned those were to indicate little about the judge's approach to big picture questions of interpretation . but to make matters worse judge jackson declined to answer basic questions about those rulings. senators asked about clear patterns in the judges criminal sentencing decisions . the she deflected by saying every case is unique. so senators tried to examine one case at a time. then the nominee said she couldn't recall details . so senators tried to supply the details. then the nominee stonewalled and said no one case can fully capture a judges record. this made up an endless circle of evasion. judge jackson wouldn't address broad patterns in her rulings because

karen cavanaugh at the wealth management and nancy ten tenger investments. nancy, you don't know what will happen with ukraine and russia hopefully it ends quickly and soon it may not inflation is not going anywhere. 11 million open jobs in the country. the fed raising rates. wow. what a time to do what you do. how do you see the world right now from investing is it better safe than risk and be sorry or now the time to take more risks >> good to see you, brian. this is the most complex investing environment of my career 13 geopolitical events since pearl harbor i have invested in seven of them they always feel like this despair. you can't see through to the other side now is the time, i think, to begin to add risk back into the portfolio. on average, of those seven i have been investing in, the market is up 14.2% 12 months later. we are in late mid cycle the pmis are rolling over. i think you want to look for -- you will expect earnings revisions revised negative you want to look at reliable growers not trading at ridiculous multiples the large cap tech name