>> again, senator, my experience in the federal courts of appeals and the supreme court are why i'm qualified. not only the depth of that experience, but the variety. the judges on the courts of appeals get a wide variety of cases and i have that experience in criminal law, prisoner pettings, products liability, intellectual property, commercial dispute, constitutional issues and a vast array of federal statutes and i've litigated all of those cases on appeal, and i will be ready when those cases come before me if i am so fortunate to be confirmed. >> let me ask you one last question. >> do you know the name of the people who clean your office? >> i used to. i've been out on maternity leave until recently and the person change happened. >> who was it? >> it was anita for a long time. >> do you want to ask some questions, mr. chairman? >> sure. >> i'm very impressed with you. naturally, i know a lot of people down there and i've worked with that law firm over various matters over my 42-year service here in the united states senate. it's a great law firm. you have a bunch of great partners. i k

of the judge. my career like many nominees for appellate court, my career is focused on appeals. i felt over 45 brief in the supreme court. been involved in more than 50 appeals occluding arguing in five of the different federal circuit courts. >> you went to work for justice thomas, that would take you through 2011? >> that's right. >> and then you came back to williams and connolly? >> i returned to williams and connolly after clerking for justin -- justice thomas where he helped build our appellate practice erie >> you have been there seven years and you became partner 2017? >> i became partner effective january 1, 2017. virtually all of my partners have graciously supported me. they are very politically and demographically diverse group and i'm honored they support my nomination. >> did you have a mentor at williams and connolly? >> i am indebted to canon it is sitting behind me. he worked alongside me in the appellate practice from the beginning. >> is she senior to me? >> he appears on the letterhead above my name. >> i don't recall when he enjoined -- joined the firm but it

the federal courts of appeal have the last word. lifetime appointments of the federal court of appeals for powerful positions. they get the full and proper vetting especially because my friend senator brown the colleagues didn't return the blue slip when mr. murphy for these two circuit court nomine nominees. today marks the first time the committee ever held a single hearing with two circuit court nominees who both failed to receive blue slips. the research service study into the records going back to 1956 couldn't find the hearing like the one that we are about to have. the circuit court nominees have extensive records. one of them has been deeply involved in the implementation and defending of the administration's most egregious and controversial programs at the justice department. to take one example, they played an instrumental role in the extreme position in the case about the constitutionality of the affordable care act at the protection for pre-existing conditions. but don't believe me, i'm a democrat. believe our democrat la

court of appeals for the district of columbia. i urge my colleagues to focus on the question at hand, and i urge them to support judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the united states supreme court. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, tomorrow we will cast a very important vote on whether to end debate on the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states.

university of chicago and spent two years as a clerk for judge silverman of the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia and next for justice thomas on the united states supreme court. after these clerkships mister miller served at the office of legal counsel in the department of justice before joining the appellate staff section of the civil division. mister miller also spent time with the federal communications commission is deputy attorney general council and five years of affirmative justice as assistant to the solicitor general. most recently mister miller has in working as a partner in seattle, washington. through all these positions he has ordered 60 appeals including 16 in the united states and over 30 in the federal courts of appeals. i welcome both of you and your families. at this point i would like to administer the oath so please rise. >> please raise your right hand. do you affirm the testimony or about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. you may be seated. judge beatty, we will h

they come to you from the district courts and the courts of appeals. but in recent years there been an increasing number of amicus briefs become direct to the court that offer fairly complex statistical scientific information that hasn't come through the lower court fact-finding process. that happened, for example, in the texas affirmative action case where an amicus briefs submitted a very complicated methodological approach to disproving the affirmative action argument that was being argued there. and several members of the court decided in oral argument in their opinions, and so what do we do about that, about the fact that an increasing number of cases, although this information is coming directly to the court without being through the rigorous fact-finding cross-examination and fact-finding process? do you think that's a problem? do you think we need to amend the rules so that amicus disclose what's new, or is this just not a problem from where you sit? >> we decide the case on the basis of a record that was made, and these briefs -- my first encou

courts and their respective circuits. one issue was whether to split up the large ninth circuit of the u.s. court of appeals on the west coast, which was dealing with the backlog of cases. a senior judge and two law professors testified before the subcommittee. >> this hearing is called to order. the federal courts occupy a unique role in our constitutional system of republican self-government. one of the bedrock principles of our identity is as a credo nation that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. that idea translates in a pretty straightforward way into the constitution's vision for the executive and legislative branches. the american people are never more than two years or 730 days from choosing whether to rehire or to fire the vast majority of the federal elected officials. at first inspection, the notion

circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit. as well as 52 of the requested new judgeships being district seats. i want to recognize the hard work of the judicial conference and the administrative office of the courts and to thank them for their willingness to submit written testimony to this hearing today. of course, congress has a duty to examine these recommendations and to determine whether authorizing new judgeships is in fact the best way to ensure the efficient administration of justice. our chairman chuck grassley of my neighboring state of iowa has a long record of oversight on this topic and has been a passionate advocate for exploring alternative means of handling expansions and case loads. chairman grassley wanted to be here today, but because we had a delayed start because of our vote sequence this afternoon, he had to leave, but he will be submitting written questions for the record. this hearing is intended then to provide an opportunity for the members of this committee of jurisdiction to examine what is working a

immediately to prison so then we appealed it and the appeal was expedited which means that quite often it takes. a number of months to come out to the court of appeal the court of appeal work very quickly i think also they probably saw something has gone wrong here so they listed it. and we then were able to take the call through all that case law including european case law and so they course the sentence is very decisively and when to be clear. here you as international human rights the woman on point that douchy st james is a pretty internationally known world normally represent the most vulnerable around the earth representing a case in the north west of yeah i think probably one reason it was exploited well i guess i mean it's interesting because i actually am from that area i'm from lancashire so all i'm the only one who ever moved out of like a ship from my immediate family so they're all still in that area so i know the local concerns about fracking from the communities in that area and i know the outrage not only nationally but also i was kept informed locally there was absolute outrage when these sentences were passed and there

of my remarks on the supreme court, but the lower courts are important as well. i am also going to talk about lower court nominations and in the second court of appeals for the district of columbia, which after the supreme court has been the site of most ditched battles, most ditched confirmation battles. the trend lines at the supreme court level repeat themselves in the lower courts as well. when i first joined the senate in 1977, the briar confirmation was perfect course. -- breyer: confirmation was par for the course. i was sworn in before president carter became president. he did not have any nominations during his term, thankfully. >> [laughter] i should not have said that, i am sure. i am thankful anyway. but he did have four d.c. circuit nominations, and those wald, abner, harry edwards, and ruth bader jimmyrg, so we can thank wald, carter for both stephen breyer and ruth bader ginsburg. they are highly respected jurists. i care for each one of them, even though they do rule the wrong way sometimes, maybe, maybe quite a bit more than i care for. the time between nomination and confirmation for all four of president carter's nominees was 2-3 months. breyeronge

misters of course his life is but with regard to this in the united states court of the district of columbia united states court of appeals in the district columbia circuit there was a case last year called united states versus layton u.s. mercenaries killed from eleven to fourteen the rockies in the town square root wounding more than twenty one that court of appeals a federal court of appeal said that a thirty year mandatory minimum sentence was cruel and unusual and hits illegal in those men have been afforded a new trial they killed more than the love at least eleven people misters of course in one thousand nine hundred eighty three killed two people in the course of a robbery those mercenaries killed eleven people or more and wounded more than twenty as part of a war crime their lives have never been threatened with execution and the courts see it that the thirty year mandatory minimum sentence was cruel while whitton either being fried in the electric chair or being poisoned to death be regardless cruel and unusual that's what i would say and i think most people who are trying to look at the question of what's the m

they were both well-respected, had solid reputations on the court of appeals. knew that and i help them. so when president clinton called me in 1993 to ask my views on who should nominate to the supreme court, i suggested ginsburg and breyer because i was sure you take the most left-wing nut cake he could find. find. they were serving up a nominee's i would have chosen had i been present but as ranking member of the senate judiciary committee at the time i thought it was important to try to work with the white house to dial back the problems with the confirmation process. and the bitterness that was existing. and the rancor that event escalate for so long. and to his credit, president clinton nominated justices ginsburg and breyer. both had smooth confirmations and confirmation processes, and were confirmed overwhelmingly by both democrats and republicans. justice ginsburg confirmation vote was 90-three. 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 so

the supreme court and the federal government said that they don't need nun toss provide these drugs. >> today, seven nuns listened as a panel of judges with the ninth circuit court of appeals questioned whether california and other states had standing to challenge that federal exemption and the trump administration's efforts to expand it. david levine is a law professor with uc hastings. >> the reality is that the regulations have the potential to allow potentially any

court of appeals and he was praised, he has been praised at the beginning of the nomination nominations. one example, emily's list versus fec a few years ago. he ruled in favor of emily's list which is a pro-choice organization that helps find it democratic pro-choice women campaigns and he ruled in favor of that organization and the ability to raise as much funds as they needed for their campaign. obviously, he would know that the group does not a fan of his but he was impartial. he looked at the law and ruled in their favor. brett kavanaugh stop voting and elections when he became a federal judge. he's an impartial person and he doesn't want to give that appearance as a judge. secondly, there are justices on the court past and present who has said much more partial things than what brett kavanaugh has said. thorogood marshall, in 1989,

court of the united states, judge brett kavanaugh. [applause] judge brett kavanaugh is a man of integrity with impeccable credentials and improving judicial philosophy. on the district of columbia court of appealsote more than 300 opinions that reflect a strong record of support for limited government, religious liberty and our second amendment. a conservative who will interpret the constitution as written and his record and career deserves the respect of every member of the united states senate. [applause] but honestly, the way some democrats have conducted themselves during this process is a disgrace. and a disservice to the senate and the american people. that being said, the president and i are confident that that republicans will manage this confirmation properly with the utmost respect for all concerned and i believe that judge brett kavanaugh will soon be just as brett kavanaugh and take his seat on the supreme court of the united states of america. [applause] the choice in this election could not be more clear. while republicans have been delivering on a commonsense conservative agenda since 26 team, in case you didn't notice, democrats have fallen further to the left than ever before.

. >> a person here has 300 court of appeals opinions on the most challenging court of appeals in the country. more than a dozen accepted word for word by the supreme court there is plenty of judicial. temperament and if thee judge can do what we are supposed to do. to see something that's highly unlikelylr i don't think judge kavanaugh would have said i categorically in equivocal he did not do this or anything like it regarding the specific chargef at if he had. that is not necessary. you don't have to say that about conduct over three decades ago. you would say other things. here is a lawyer whose legal capacity has never been challenged he would not have had to make that statement if there was any reasoning to be concerned. he said he didn't do it everybody asked says they did not see it i believe something dramatic did happen to doctor ford but i don't believe in involved judge kavanaugh. with the obvious specific three decades later of the person involved you can actually believe without exception that both of them are telling the truth. i joined judge kavanaugh's daughter to pra

we kno o know what his temperams because he spent 12 years on the court of appeals that's why the american bar association gave the highestor rating not only fr his experience, but for his temperamentl. as well. they interviewed hundreds of lawyers and people who have knowledge of judge kavanaugh temperament an and basic soldier serving witsouldeserving of theg that the association could give. i wonder how any of us would feel if we were accused of a crime that we didn't commit and we were forced into the public limelight to defend our good name and honor and reputation and to protect the family against the threats being made against them. i would be angry. i would do anything possible to push back against the false accusations and that's what judge kavanaugh date. he offered his denial of every allegation under the penalty of felony. so the question is how do we decide because we will be voting tomorrow starting on this nomination. isn't it one word, do they know who to trust, whose word to accept when allegations are made of something that happened 35 years ago with gaps in the story, in

george hw bush appointed justice thomas to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia. that was 1990. 16 months later president bush came knocking again and nominated justice thomas to the supreme court of the united states. his appointment was confirmed on october 15 his appointment was confirmed on october 15, 1991. i will simply add to that, a productive life that since joining the supreme court in 1991, justice thomas has been a loyal and generous friend of the supreme court historical society in addition to introducing many of our lectures . he has hosted state chairs and dinners and served as the society's annual lecturer in 1977-- 1997. it is my pleasure and honor to introduce you to justice clarence thomas. >> [ applause ] >> thank you. good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the supreme court. i am delighted that so many of you could join us this evening for the first lecture in the societies 2017 leon silverman lecture series. tonight's lecture by saikrishna prakash will focus on two of our nation's early chief justices and their work as secretaries

circuit court of appeals with many cases where he's written the opinion of the court, have been adopted by the supreme court. united states essentially as the law of the land. how do we know he will exercise the kind of care and temperament and fairness that we would expect of a member of the united states supreme court? because he already has. for the last 12 years. he will judge those before him fairly and carefully. judge kavanaugh belongs on the

court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. and in theory, they could say no. i think it would raise separation of showers, questions if they did, but at least the nation had it, if nothing else, the symbolic aprobation of three judges and one of whom was appointed during my tenure by a president of the other party. so, there were these sort of checks and balances in place before the lewinsky investigation began. so i describe in the book, this is something, john, i felt was important, at least as part of the historical record, given the lack of understandings, misunderstanding and just the political rhetoric that was fleeing around at the time, that there was, in fact, a review by janet reno herself of the evidence. she had terrific lawyers, career prosecutors around here and in fairly short order, she made the determination that whether monica lewinsky and others had committed perjuries, other offenses against the rule of law had to be investigated and the logical shop alas, some people draw the short straw, the logical shot to do the investigation is your hu

brett kavanaugh's temperament is like from the bench because he spent 12 years on the dc circuit court of appeals. that is why the american bar association gave their highest rating not only for his experience but his temperament as well. they interviewed hundreds of lawyers and people who had knowledge of brett kavanaugh's expertise and temperament and they said it was deserving of the highest rating of the american bar association could give. i wonder how any of us would feel if we were accused of a crime that we didn't commit and were forced into the public limelight to defend our good name and our honor and our reputation and to protect our family against the threats. and i would do everything possible against the accusations. that is what brett kavanaugh did. along the way he offered his denial of allegations of doctor ford under penalty of felony. the question is how do we decide? we are going to be voting starting tomorrow on this nomination. somebody's were against another, don't we have to believe, when allegations were made about something allegedly happened 35 years ago. i think first

we are seeing roll call votes on every single court of appeals nominee. no kidding. roll call and cloture votes on nearly every district court nominee as well. we have gone from the world of voice votes and unanimous consent agreements on seven of president reagan's eight dc circuit nominees to straight partisan wear fair up and down the entire federal judiciary. it's all scorched earth, all the time. and it's terrible. i hope you found tonight's history lesson interesting. my goal tonight has been to share with you my perspective in how the judicial confirmation process has changed for the worse during my time in the senate. there is blame on both sides. i admit. though i think a fair assessment of the facts shows that the vast majority of the blame lies with one side in particular. and it is not my side. [ laughter ] as you all know. it's not ourist side. but that's an argument for another day. i worry that those entering politics today and my many senate colleagues who haven't had the long tenure i have think that it is always been this way, that it's always been a

justice roberts: it was in january 2 argue a case in the court of appeals. i had never been in the court of appeals here before, and i always like to visit the venue before the day of argument. we were staying in the st. paul hotel, i think. anyway, the courthouse was very close, and i thought i would walk about five blocks and after two blocks, i turned back and said i would see it in the morning. my wife went to law school here, as she puts it, for three winters. professor stein: we are delighted you are here and we have a wonderful sunny day to welcome you. friends, attorneys, totally filling this auditorium, thank you all for being here as well and welcome. this is the format we will follow this afternoon. the chief justice and i will have a conversation until about 5:00. following my questions, there will be an opportunity for you to ask chief justice roberts questions. microphones have been placed on both sides of the main floor of the auditorium for you to ask your questions of the chief justice. please remain in your seats during my conversation with

circuit court of appeals. to submit received a grant recipient i think it was andrew miller, i could be wrong about that come from mueller come he refused to comply with that grand jury subpoena. he turned over documents and refuse to testify. he is been held in contempt of that content has been held in advance what he feels that his argument essentially is that rod rosenstein, that bob mueller as an outside private lawyer was not properly appointed in accordance with the appointments clause, and that rod rosenstein who is not the attorney general could not appoint him and that therefore this investigation is void because he wasn't properly -- i'm not talked about the merits of that but but i know i is taking place. i was curious when you talk to censure as an alternative, that is of course after they declined to convict president clinton, that that's what they ended up settling on and your successor robert ray i get settled for censure by a judge and i guess susan speedy it was a finding and thus the name of

lord hain has defended his decision to use parliamentary privilege to name the tycoon, defying a court of appealhilip denies all the allegations against him. simon jack has more. lord hain used special privileges enjoyed by members of parliament to speak freely without fear of being sued to identify sir philip despite the fact the court of appeal had issued a gagging order preventing the daily telegraph revealing his identity because the claimants had signed nondisclosure agreements. it was an ingterm order pending further legal proceedings. in a statement issued exclusively to the bbc, sir philip green said: lord hain has denied he knew that gordon dadds were representing the newspaper. lord hain‘s actions have divided opinion. some, like sir vince cable, leader of the liberal democrats, have supported his decision to name sir philip as being in the public interest, while other like former attorney—general dominic grieve have criticised his decision to take the law into his own hands. if mps do this, it undermines the rule of law because the courts are there to decide whether injunctions should

our correspondentjenny kumah gave us this update from outside the court of appeal. ght to peaceful protest had been infringed. they were jailed last month for a protest that lasted four days lastjuly. they climbed onto the cabs of some lorries that were carrying equipment to the shale gas site near blackpool in lancashire. this led to four days of disruption, of road closures and traffic delays. the judge jailed for the impact that this had but today their lawyers successfully argued that this was excessive. they argued that it was also highly unusual, that people hadn‘t been jailed in this way for an offence like this since the mass kinder scout trespass, where100 ramblers had walked onto private land in derbyshire to assert their right to roam. the appealjudge said today that their sentence had been manifestly excessive. what would have been more appropriate, he said, was a community sentence with a significant amount of paid work. so the jail term was quashed. the men were given a conditional discharge for two years. we understand that the men, they gave evidence

circuit court of appeals with many cases where he's written the opinion of the court, have been adopted by the supreme court. united states essentially as the law of the land. how do we know he will exercise the kind of care and temperament and fairness that we would expect of a member of the united states supreme court? because he already has. for the last 12 years. he will judge those before him fairly and carefully. judge kavanaugh belongs on the nation's highest bench. and by the end of this week, it will be time to put him there. enough is enough. >> mr. president, last week the senate judiciary committee heard testimony from dr. christine blasey ford and judge brett kavanaugh about dr. ford's account of an attack on her by judge kavanaugh and a friend when they were all teenagers. dr. ford acquitted herself with grace and courage. recounting the terrifying experience that has had a lasting effect on her life. in his own testimony, judge kavanaugh dropped the mrit ven near he presented at the confirmation hearing when he complimented all the senators he met with and told the commit

we have a person here who has 300 court of appeals opinions on the most challenging court of appeals in the country. more than a dozen of those, almost accepted word for word by the supreme court. there is plenty to determine judicial temperament. there is plenty to determine whether the judge can do what the judge is supposed to do. unless later today somehow we see something that is highly unlikely based on all the things already out there, i tend to vote for brett kavanaugh. i don't think he would have said i categorically and unequivocally didn't do this or anything like it regarding the specific charge if he had. that was not necessary. you wouldn't have to say that about conduct over three decades ago. you can say all kinds of other things. but here is a lawyer whose legal capacity has never been challenged. he would not have had to make that unequivocal statement if there was any reason to be concerned about that statement. he says he didn't do it. everybody else who was asked if they saw it happen, says they didn't see it. i believe something traumatic did happen to doctor fo

a graduate of yale law school, clerkships on both the ninth circuit court of appeals and the united statessupreme court under justice kennedy, he's been described as wicked smart and extraordinarily hardworking. he went over this on numerous occasions, discussing his early service on the court of appeals where he wanted to emulate judge merrick garland, whom we've heard something about. merrick garland is a prodigious worker by reputation. judge kavanaugh saw that and did his best to follow in his footsteps in that regard. else a had a huge output in cases. i believe 312 written opinions over his 12 years on the bench, and in addition to that, outside the court, law review articles, speeches, and many presentations to groups. he also lectures at the harvard law school. and regarding his previous experience, it also includes, as we know, a previous experience in the executive branch, both as a lawyer and as an assistant to the president. and all of this -- in all of this, by the way, he was required to undergo six separate f.b.i. checks. his qualifications have been reviewed by the american

court of appeals. folks need to be sensitive to some of these senators' views. lisa murkowski, who i have a great deal of admiration and respect for, one, with the write-in vote -- susan: senator, i have to cut you off right there. we will go straight to the senate floor. susan collins speaking. looks like protesters interrupting her opening statement at this point. we are awaiting susan collins, announcing her decision in terms of how she's going to vote in the confirmation of judge brett kavanaugh in that crucial vote to send him to the supreme court. we want to listen in quickly. [ chanting ] >> as a reminder to our guests, expressions of approval and disapproval are not permitted in the senate galleries. the senator for maine. >> mr. president, the five previous times that i have come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the united states supreme court, i have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion, but today, we have come to the conclusion of a con

hain has defended his decision to use parliamentary privilege to name the tycoon, which defied a court of appeal a statement, lord hain said he "resolutely" stood by his decision to name the businessman and would "neither retract nor apologise for standing up for human rights". sir philip denies all the allegations against him. simon jack has more. lord hain used special privileges enjoyed by members of parliament to speak freely without fear of being sued, to identify sir philip despite the fact the court of appeal had issued a gagging order preventing the daily telegraph revealing his identity because the claimants had signed nondisclosure agreements. it was an interim order pending further legal proceedings. in a statement issued exclusively to the bbc, sir philip green said... lord hain has denied he knew that gordon dadds were representing the newspaper. lord hain‘s actions have divided opinion. some, like sir vince cable, leader of the liberal democrats, have supported his decision to name sir philip as being in the public interest, while others like former attorney—general dominic grieve

eastern to consider nomination for the fourth circuit court of appeals and judicial districts in floridand alabama. that's followed by an event marking the 20th anniversary of the children's online privacy protection act with messages at senator ed marquee among the speakers. then at 5:30, there's a discussion for the stroojic and international studies about free speech and national studies. on c-span two, jim park, talks about the future of medicaid and prescription drug prices. that's followed by rod rosenstein discussing ways to address the opioid epidemic. and at 7:00, a look at how democrats and republicans are campaigning with less than a month to go before the 2018 midterm elections. >> the c-span boss is traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour. we recently stopped in columbus, ohio, and looking forward to the november midterm elections we're asking folks which party should control congress and why. >> i believe that congress should remain in republican hands after this next election. a couple of reasons for this. possibly the largest one is it's been stated that if t

circuit court of appeals. he's someone who is a seasoned judge who developed an you amazg reputation for even handedness, coming in nonpolitical, non-partisan. i think he will continue that on the supreme court. it's a good day for that court to have someone of his stature there joining those justices and i know that he is someone known for cle collegiality as well. chris: what do you think as you look at the pictures of protesters, i will say there are some pro-kavanaugh protesters here, supporters here, i've seen some signs that said believe kavanaugh, but you've got to assume the vast majority of these folks are upset with how the senate has voted today. do you worry about that this has unleashed a reaction in the country? >> i think we see it as leader mcconsistent saidconnell said, e reaction on both sides. a number of people have written to me or received social media messages, talking about how insensed they are at the lack of due process being thrown here, the willingness to throw aside as professo the

he was on the dc court of appeals, widely regarded as oui’ court of appeals, widely regarded as our nationsest court. dring his tenure, he authored over 300 opinions distinguished by their masterful and impartial reasoning. known as a judge'sjudge, masterful and impartial reasoning. known as a judge's judge, he is a fair—minded, and biased and evenhanded person. brett kavanahugh has been speaking about being confirmed as a justice of the supreme court. the senate confirmation process was contentious and emotional. that process is over. my focus now is to be the best justice process is over. my focus now is to be the bestjustice i can be. i take this office with gratitude and no bitterness. on the supreme court i will seek to be a force for stability and unity. my goal is to bea stability and unity. my goal is to be a greatjustice for all americans. our north america correspondent, peter bowesjoins me now. peter, a very different approach there, a different speech compared to what we saw at that confirmation process. yes, this was, in many respects, quite a unique ceremony. 0f respects, quit

i mean, it was obvious what congress wanted in the clean air act and the court of appeals, as a matter of fact, said that increasing the scope from a single operation to a bubble of all operations together was inconsistent with the statute and struck it down. the supreme court took the case and said well, they could have said well, you don't have to strike it down because in fact, it's just a detail. whether it applies to this bubble of related agencies -- entities or whether it applies only to one, the sort of thing that an administrative agency can actually decide. that's one thing they can do. another thing would be to return it and said it's really not clear what congress intended he here, and a third thing would have been just to approve what the court of appeals had done and say it was wrong, they were wrong under the statute, the clean air statute, and what you're doing is you are making it harder for the states involved to regulate. so they didn't do any of those things. they did the worst possible thing and that is they said the courts should look -- first of all, they said th

circuit court of appeals. that's why the american bar association gave him their very highest rating not only for his experience, but for his temperament as well. they interviewed hundreds of lawyers and people who had knowledge of judge kavanaugh's exer tease and his -- expertise and his temperament and they all said it was deserving of the highest rating that the american bar association could give. i wonder how any of us would feel if we were accused of a crime that we didn't commit and were forced into the public limelight to defend our good name and our honor and our reputation and to protect our family against the threats that were being made against them. i'd be angry. i'd do everything possible to push back against the false accusations. and that's what judge kavanaugh did. along the way he, again, offered his denial of any of the allegations of dr. ford under penalty of felony. so the question is how do we decide, because we're going to be voting starting tomorrow on this nomination. isn't it somebody'

of white house counsel and that was only the beginning. for the last 12 years brett kavanaugh has served on what is widely considered the second highest court in the land, the dc circuit court of appeals, written 300 judicial opinions, several formed the basis of later rulings by the supreme court itself, a litany of accomplishments is a fact. it is a matter of public record. but just as telling are all the accounts of brett kavanaugh the person. that have been volunteered by those who have known him every step of the way over the years. we have heard from literally hundreds of character witnesses who praised the brett kavanaugh they know. the loyal friend and teammate, the hard-working call -- colleague, the brilliant role model and mentor, particularly 2 women. these letters, recorded testimony offered by men and women with nothing to gain for themselves. they were glad to tell the truth about a nominee who knows the character and temperament and qualifications with this important job. brett cavanagh's defend is ascribe a leading thinker, and one goes so far, hard to name someone with judicial credentials as strong as brett kavanaugh. and full throated support that the work ethic gr

this accusation due to lack of judicial temperament are ignoring the 12 years on the dc circuit court of appeals. those that have the judicial nominations him heart by character and temperament. it is a red herring you cannot accuse someone of a crime and expect them to sit there and take it. it is a logical and unreasonable. and now the argument is we really have got the judge now. we have those discrepancies. based on what? his high school yearbook. this has been quite an investigation going back into the high school t yearbook asking them to decipher things that would be cringe worthy that adolescents do in their high school yearbook. so if you have the opportunity to ascend to the highest court in the land the united states senate will scour the high school yearbook not by you but by others in the yearbook. a national embarrassment it reminds me of the mccarthy hearings the senator fromth wisconsin riding high on the concerns the american people had about communist and government but to go too far and at one point expelled from the senate and asked by one of the lawyers to represent a young

brett kavanaugh has served on what was widely considered the court in our land the ninth circuit court of appeals writing more than 300 opinions with the litany of accomplishments is a fact. a fact in a matter of public record. but just as telling her all the accounts of brett kavanaugh the person volunteered by those who have known him every step of the way. those who have given him praise teammates or the standout student, the role model and mentor particularly to women. devoted husband and father and coach. these letters and recorded testimony were offered by women who had nothing to gain. they were just glad to tell the truth about a nominee they know who possesses the character and qualifications for this important job. judge kavanaugh's professors athat knew him at yale call him a wonderful mentor and leader. one would go so far to say it's hard to name anyone higher than judge kavanaugh the former law clerks to say he flows from the fundamental humility he gives honest advice and listens carefully to colleagues and clerks even though the views may differ from his own. he is called unquesti

nuisance at a protest against the energy company, caudrilla, are to be freed after a decision at the court of appealed for 16 months, while rich loizou was sentenced to 15 months. jenny kumah is at the court of appeal in central london. what has happened today? this is a significant victory for the three men. they had beenjailed, this is highly unusual for a sentence to be passed in this case and their lawyers argued but they had shown no violence and no damage in the protest which lasted for four days. there was widespread disruption but they said the sentence was excessive. giving their verdict today the lawyers agreed, the judge said the sentence had been ma nifestly said the sentence had been manifestly excessive. he said that the more appropriate sentence would have been a community order. the significant amount of paid work and a conditional discharge for two yea rs. a conditional discharge for two years. it is unusual for people to be jailed in this case, the last time was almost 90 years ago and that was during the gender scout master trust bass. we understand arrangements are now being made

court of d.c. for a month. it was disposed of on september 19th, and since then it has moved with remarkable speed to the court of appeals. schedule was set. there was a procedural flaw. it went back to the district court. back to the court of appeals -- >> you think it's a secret -- you think it's a secret pursuit of trump by bob mueller, but with jay sekulow -- >> i think it could be. >> with jay sekulow rebutting that on the record tonight. where does that leave you? >> well, first of all, i would expect a lawyer who is representing a witness in a sealed federal case to deny it, to do anything but to deny it would be to admit it. if he said, no comment, you all would jump on that. if they really want to keep this secret, if they really want to keep this under wraps, i would expect them to deny it. >> you busted me. few things excite me more than jay sekulow saying no comment. i'm joking with you because i'm going to respectfully disagree, mya, and say there are ways this could have been interesting. and nelson outlines a case a lot of people are wondering about, which is if or when bob mueller tries to make president

court of appeals for the district of columbia. i urge my colleagues to focus on the question at hand, and i urge them to support judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the united states supreme court. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, tomorrow we will cast a very important vote on whether to end debate on the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. should he be confirmed to this position of awesome responsibility, judge kavanaugh would be just one of nine people with the power to change the american government and the american way of life for at least a generation. he would be hearing and deciding cases that touch all facets of our lives, including the health care we receive when the texas case involving the affordable care act's individual mandate makes its way to the supreme court. and this particular case is very important because if texas wins, that means that the a.c.a.'s protections for those with preex