fordan d judge kavanaugh. i've reviewed judge kavanaugh's opinions as a judge and his public record during his tenure in the white house. based on his record i cannot support his nomination for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court of thehe united states. i'd reached this conclusion before dr. ford's allegations were made, based on his court opinions and white house record. that conclusion was reinforced by judge kavanaugh's testimony and responsive dr. ford's powerful and compelling testimony raising very serious issues concerning judge kavanaugh's conduct. judge kavanaugh's response demonstrated his lack of impartiality and temperament, which is a critical qualification to serve as a judge. that view was reinforced by a letter written by over 1000 law professors and legal scholars reaching the same conclusion that i had drawn. i was very disappointed by the process on judge kavanaugh's nomination that was dictated by the republican leadership. for senator mcconnell, ten months was in adequate time for

judges judge at every level of the federal bench should be held to the highest standard. judges at every level should be judicious and credible and independent, but especially, especially on the supreme court. i do not see how it is possible for my colleagues to say with perfect confidence that judge kavanaugh has the temperament, independence, and credibility to serve on the united states supreme court. so i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, why judge kavanaugh? there is no dictate that you have to march blindly forward with a nominee when there are others available to you. there are many judges who i'm sure conservatives would be happy to have on the court. i'd remind my colleagues, the seat that brett kavanaugh aspires to fill was held by a justice who assumed the bench after one nominee was voted down by the senate and a second nominee withdrew his nomination. but the republican majority has pressed forward blindly on judge kavanaugh, even when brave women came forward to speak truth to power. why? for what cause? for the sake of winning? that's not re

judge kavanaugh descented. arguing the basic authorities act overrules existing antidiscrimination laws. his willingness to -- from the law is struggling. once again we see a pattern in judge kavanaugh's rulings. favoring the powerful over individual rights. in another case judge kavanaugh descented from a majority decision which ruled that an african american fbi agent could pursue a case of improper retaliation for filing a discriminatation claim when the agency started security investigations against him as long as he did so without questioning unrevaluable decisions by the fbi security division. he state the claim must be dismissed despite the majority's warning that this was not required by president and the court should preserve to the maximum extent possible title 7's important protection against roworkplace discrimination. and retaliation. judge kavanaugh was in the minority on that opinion. judge kavanaugh's dissent in these cases carve out federal employs from protection of federal employment lscrimin

nominated judges. i thought judges were supposed to be politically apolitical. as i noted the district judge in california appointed by -- nominated by president bush is the with one that is holding the administration's feet to the fire over the issue of the separation of children from their parents. i think the fact that -- somebody is nominated by a republican or a democrat should have absolutely nothing to do with the ability of that judge to be fair. in fact, that is the reason that we have advice and consent by the senate, and i wanted to ask professor ringhold, i think you've been watching the -- what's been happening in this judiciary committee, particularly with reference to the gorsuch hearings and we're about to have hearings on judge kavanaugh. they constantly -- in fact, the district and circuit court judges cite the so-called ginsburg rule, which maybe you can explain briefly what they think the ginsburg rule is and why they don't respond it to our questions that reveal their judicial phil

kavanaugh, reviewedge judge kavanaugh's opinions as a judge, public record during his tenure in the white house. i cannot support his nomination for a lifetime apartment one - - appointment i reached this before doctor ford's allegations were made based on the white house record that was reinforced by judge kavanaugh's testimony in response to doctor ford's testimony raising serious issue for the conduct. with a lack of impartiality and temperament which is the critical qualification. and then to reach the same conclusion that i have drawn. i was very disappointed by the process of accommodation with leadership and for senator mcconnell with the in adequate time for the senate to consider obama's choice of judge garland to the supreme court of united states. the republican leadership has a complete discovery i served on the judiciary committee with justice soto mayor and justice kagan. and that was welcomed by democrats. with a reasonable request for information but to make matters worse to classify certain documents is confidential remaining for public use for that confirmation pro

my chief judge is judge sidney thomas from the state of montana. but personal preferences are not paramount when dealing with the all important national policy for structuring the federal court system. i have had the privilege of serving on the ninth circuit for 32 years now. and for more than 20 of those years, i have advocated a commonsense restructuring of my court. in doing so, i have testified five times before this very committee and four times before its house of representatives counterpart. i do not wish to repeat today all that has been said over the past few decades. my written testimony with appendicis of graphics attached is before you. with substantially more detail than i will cover in this brief oral presentation. today, i would simply like to highlight two points. first, the much needed restructuring of the ninth circuit should not be an act of interest group interventionism or the invasion of party politics into the judiciary. rather, reshaping the ninth circuit should be a matter of national, judicial administration. and the commo

the burden should be on judge kavanaugh to show he's fit for the judge. and now the prosecutor concludes she cannot bring a conclusion based on evidence at the second hearing. frankly this conclusion is meaningless, i'm sure in her previous job as a specialist in sex crimes she would have never have proceed today a trial before an investigation and she would not have excluded key witnesses. there was no investigation. key witnesses were not called. this is not the way that she would prepare a case. i have said many times that democrats didn't need to manufacture reasons to oppose judge kavanaugh's to the supreme court based on his writings, speeches -- i have concluded he would not be a fair justice for the supreme court. his views on reproductive rights, native writes, legal protections for workers, consumers, and not to mention his broad views on presidential protections are all of deep concern to me, but now that we've heard dr. ford's account and have seen judge kavanaugh's angry and combative reaction it is evident that he should not serve and should

ford, to judge kavanaugh, it has been cruel to the judge's family. and it has been reckless in the extreme. and i think it's been an embarrassment. it is a stain on the reputati reputation. and the standing of the united states senate. so as the supplemental fbi investigation wraps up, let's be mindful of what our colleagues across the aisle say they expected from this supplemental background investigation because they, too, understood we're approaching the end of this process. for example, the senior senator from minnesota says let's give this one week. she said that last friday. and she indicated her support for the investigation, even saying we're all in a better spot now than we were before. well, i hope that's still her position. we had our colleagues across the aisle agree to both the timeline and the validity of this last step in judge kavanaugh's confirmation. the junior senator from delaware during the hearing called for the same amount of time, just one more week. and in a television interview, the junior senator from hawaii shade that seve

let it be real judges. so that we can do what we are supposed to do, which is our oath of office. >> well, i would like to thank you so much for being here with us today. this is a mug from the national press club. we present one to each of our speaker, and we do very much appreciate you coming and explaining this issue to us. indeed, i believe you have a little bit of time for one-on-ones, if somebody here would like to speak with the judge one-on-one, please talk to dave over here. i would just like to take a minute to high light some of our upcoming events on monday, we have craig newmire, the founder of craigslist coming here for lunch, and later in the week, we have paul ryan, we also have the president of slovenia. there are lots of great events happening at the club, over the next weeks and months, so please take a look at our web site, and i hope you can come here and join us. thank you for being with us today. >> thank you for having me. >> a pleasure meeting you. >> thank you. >>> tonight, america

blasey ford and judge kavanaugh. for too long republicans have rushed this process forward, and likely would've rushed to a final vote if not for the prudent bipartisan efforts of those senators to demand a full fbi investigation. what's important now is for the fbi investigation to be serious, impartial and thorough. tore ferret out the facts and do so quickly. that means interviewing all, all of the relevant witnesses and excepting accepting corroborative accounts when they come forward. it also means following up on any leads that emerge from the process of the investigation. the fbi has ample resources to do this within one week timeframe requested by members of the judiciary committee. no one is asking it take longer than a week but everyone is asking it be done thoroughly and completely within that week. there is concern that the white housed has placed severe constraints on the investigation, and until today the president tried to dodge that responsibility. the white house even saying that the fan is somehow r

judge griffith at the end, judge connor, judge toronto, judge mccullough, i'll let the judge introduce of his committee. as you know, if you've looked at the schedule for today, there's-- the hearing notice has so the forth what the rules are that we're talking about and i'm not going to go through those in any great detail, but suffice it to say that this is a part of a multi-faceted approach to dealing with conduct in the workplace issues. the items that are currently in play are being planned are the working group that i've referred to. there is the proposed office of judicial integrity within the administrative office that is within the works. and then there are rule changes to both the rules on conduct in disability and to the code of conduct for united states judges and the code of conduct for judicial employees. now, this is not a fact-finding hearing. this is a hearing that's designed to deal with issues related to the proposed amendments to the rule and one of the things i would like all of the people testifying just to bear in mind, that the time limits and the time constrain

not judges. he has explained, in numerous cases, that the fundamental goal of the separation of powers under a constitutional system is the protection of individual liberty. he has interpreted the constitution according to text, history, and tradition, not his own personal views. that is exactly the type of person we need on the supreme court. judge kavanaugh has also demonstrated judicial independence and courage as an -- and courage. as an example, in the two years after he was appointed to the d.c. circuit by president george w. bush, he ruled against bush administration agencies on 23 cases. so do not let anybody tell you that he is obligated to president trump. we can expect that justice kavanaugh will be beholden to no one, and nothing, except the constitution. judge kavanaugh also has a well-earned reputation for collegiality. he has an excellent relationship with all of his colleagues in the d.c. circuit and his judicial record demonstrates the same. judge kavanaugh was in the majority, i

i think judge beatty and judge immergut answered that well. i think the role of a judge, particularly a trial judge to which i have been nominated is to decide actual disputes for the litigants before them that satisfy the constitutional prerequisites for maintaining in federal courts. as judge immergut noted, there are limited jurisdiction and particularly the court of federal claims which has discrete jurisdiction as conferred by congress. trial judges are meant to find the facts particularly to evaluate the witnesses, credibility, determinations and apply the law as handed down by the supreme court or apply the statutory laws created by congress, regulations implement in the statutes. judges should treat litigants fairly and evenhandedly and show no partiality or favor to them and they should decide the cases promptly as the litigants often have major financial stakes pending and time is money for people in judges should because it doesn't of that. >> my time has run out but i want to tell you i appreciate your adding the notion of promptne

i believe that judge kavanaugh is a good man. he's a good man. he's clearly a learned judge. but in my conscience, because that's how i have to vote at the end of the day is with my conscience, i could not conclude that he is the right person for the court at this time. and this has been agonizing for me with this decision. it is as hard a choice, probably as close a call as any that i can ever remember. and i hope -- i hope and i pray that we don't find ourselves in this situation again. but i'm worried. i am really worried that this becomes the new normal where we find new and even more creative ways to tear one another down, that good people are just going to say, forget it. it's not worth it. i'm looking at some of the comments, the statements that are being made against me, against my good friend, my dear friend from maine. the hateful, the aggressive, the truly, truly all of manner with which so many are acting now. it's got to end. this is not who we are. this is not who we should be. this is not who we raise our children to be. so i -- as we move forward, again, throu

is that how a judge is supposed to act? not according to judge kavanaugh. i want to quote from a law review article he wrote two years ago about how a good judge is supposed to act, quote, to be a good judge and a good umpire, it's critical that you have the proper demeanor. we must walk in the shoes of other judges, the lawyers and the parties. it's important to understand them to keep our emotions in check, to be calm amidst the storm, to put it in the vernacular, to be a good umpire and a good judge, don't be a jerk. mr. president, judge kavanaugh would have been well served to listen to his own advice. i was shocked by his tirade against my colleagues and my party. i was disturbed by its vindictiveness, his animosity. i once quote from his testimony to remind you of what he said at his hearing. every time i hear these words i'm in disbelief a nominee of the supreme court said them to the judiciary committee in prepared testimony under oath. he said, quote, this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with the ap

with judge brett kavanaugh. not saying they didn't happen, that christine ford wasn't attacked, just saying she didn't believe or see evidence that it was actually brett kavanaugh who was involved in that. so she made a lengthy speech about this and at the end, came up with a conclusion that she believes her voters or constituents will accept but it looks like she's a yes note tomorrow. susan: okay. let's get back to senator george allen. so effectively, senator susan collins is the 50th vote. do we have the confirmation of brett kavanaugh? >> if everything stays the same at 50-50, vice president pence will cast the tie-breaking vote. there still is hope that joe manchin, a democrat of west virginia, will vote as well so it will be 51. senator murkowski looks like she might be against it but she cares a lot about the rights and sovereignty of alaskan tribes so that's a big issue in alaska and throughout indian country across the country. that's another issue that's not as big an issue in maine. i think if you lo

it was judge kavanaugh's turn. and what did we hear from judge kavanaugh? we heard anger many we heard belligerence. we heard evasiveness. we heard disrespect. judge kavanaugh's testimony before the judiciary committee reinforced the old concerns about his credibility. he gave answers about his behavior in high school about supposed drinking games and about his yearbook page that simply defy credulity. recent reports from those who know him from high school and college contradict the assertions that he was never aggressive or belligerent after drinking or the terms in his yearbook had the meaning he ascribed to them before the judiciary committee. in fact, in a letter that brett kavanaugh wrote in 1983 that surfaced after his testimony, he described himself and his friends as, quote, loud, obnoxious drunks. the point is not that brett kavanaugh engaged in questionable behavior in high school, the point is that he was not honest about it with the judiciary committee under oath at his confirmation hearing. the point is that he was not credible. the point is t

even the american bar association, which the democrat say is their gold standard for judging judges,eir unanimous well-qualified rating. what left wing groups and their democratic allies have done to judge brett kavanaugh is nothing short of monstrous. i saw what they did to robert bourke. i saw what they did to clarence thomas. that was nothing compared to what we witnessed here in the last three months. the conduct of left wing dark money groups and their allies in this body have shamed us all. the fix was in from the very beginning, before the ink was even dry on the nomination, the minority leader announced he would oppose judge brett kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. even before he knew the president's nominee, the minority leader said he was opposed to all 25 well-qualified potential nominees listed by this president. even one member of my committee said that those who vote to confirm judge brett kavanaugh would be quote, unquote, complicit in evil. another member of the committee revealed the end game when she suggested that senate democrats could hold the vacan

he is, as some have described, a judge's judges a real standout on the bench. people would have been surprised if he were not someday nominated to serve on the supreme court. he's also been recommended by law professors and former clerks and hundreds of people who have written letters in his behalf. and i no note that many of -- and i note that many of these are democrats. they're not necessarily all conservatives or republicans. he is well-regarded by virtually everyone who has had connection with him either in his profession or as a member of the bench. the next question that we go to in evaluating a nominee to a court is their judicial philosophy. how do they approach the job of judging? how will they decide cases? is now now, i first want to say what judge kavanaugh is not. he made it crystal clear in many meetings in which i sat with him discussing with senators. he's not a results-oriented judge. he doesn't decide when the parties come before the court who he wants to win and then figure out a way to help that party win the case. that is not the right way

judge kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12 year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament. the american bar association gave him its highest possible rating. standing committee on the federal judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough investigation, solace -- soliciting almost 500 colleagues. they concluded his judicial temperament and professional confidence met the highest standards. lisa black who has argued more cases before the supreme court than any other woman in history testified, quote, by any objective measure, judge kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the supreme court. his opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair. miss black who clerked for him and ardent admire remember of justice ginsburg and is in her own words an unapologetic defender of a woman's right to choose says that judge kavanaugh fits within the mainstream of legal thought. she also observed that judge kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession. that judge kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is refle

there were no unsavory allegations against judge scalia or judge alito, two judges that democrats oppose based on their right-wing, pro-dark money ideology. elevation to the supreme court for a lifetime appointment is not a right, it's a privilege. and while the republicans take great umbrage that judge kavanaugh's reputation is at take, the fact -- at stake, the fact is we have before us credible allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct and justice demands that he be called to answer those allegations. he should not get a pass. mr. president, i reviewed -- i've reviewed judge kavanaugh's decisions, writings, and speeches, all his testimony before the senate judiciary committee, the meager set of documents made available when he served as a white house lawyer and as part of the independent counsel kenneth starr's investigation. on the merits this nominee simply does not represent mainstream judicial thought. he is on the extreme edge, but the american people want a justice whose judicial philosophy falls within established parameters, a justice who is not on the far end of the

let's get to the judge's record on these issues. judge kavanaugh on the d.c. circuit shows a pattern of siding against individuals with disabilities. he has sided with employers over employees who have a disability, making it more difficult for employers to prove discrimination in court and have their rights protected under the law, and in a case called doe versus d.c., he called into question the very autonomy and right to self-determination of people with disabilities. the case involved three women who had intellectual disabilities and lived in facilities run by the district of columbia. the district allowed medical professionals to decide when elective surgeries would be performed on these women without even consulting with them and without even trying to determine the wishes of these three women. the trial court sided with the women in this case and said the district of columbia had to attempt to determine what these women wanted before making medical decisions on their behalf. judge kavanaugh overturned the lower court decision. he questioned the basic li

for stearts, let's point -- starters, let's point out that judge kavanaugh is a mainstream judge. during his time on the d.c. circuit, judge kavanaugh's democrat-appointed colleagues have been just as likely to join his majority opinions as his republican-appointed colleagues. just as likely. judge kavanaugh has won admiration from across the political spectrum for his intellect, his fairness, and his dedication to the law. former obama acting solicitor general neil catyall noted about judge kavanaugh, and i quote, i think it's hard for anyone who has worked with him, appeared before him to frankly say a bad word about him. in my practice, we basically have a rule. if there is a kavanaugh clerk who applies, we hire that person, end quote. 34 of judge kavanaugh's law clerks wrote a letter on his nomination which said in payroll tax relief part, -- said in part, and i quote, our views on politics on many of the important issues faced by the supreme court and on judicial philosophy are diverse. our ranks include republicans, democrats, and independents. but we are united in this, our

so if you're conservative, you're seen as a conservative judge federal court judge by the appellate court or maybe even the state supreme court justice. are we had some members of the u.s. supreme court have their start. if, you're not on that list of 25,oi if you're one of the hundreds of judges appointed by republican presidents, you need not apply because you don't have any chance of getting on the supreme court because you're not on that list of 25. i think we can reach could and should reach a lot further than just a list of 25 that represent a very narrow view of just this, a narrow view of jurisprudence in the traveling view of the red of working men and women just be way of example. on the district of columbia circuit, judge kavanaugh has frequently dissented from his colleagues in cases involving worker rights, discrimination and retaliation. going out of his way at times to argue the interest of corporations should override of individual workers. i serve on the special committee on aging. i happen to be serving as the ranking member in this congress along with chairman susan col

on august 20th meeting with judge kavanaugh with that allegation and didn't discuss it with judge kavanaugh but instead the ranking member recommended to have highly operatives. so why would you take an allegation of sexual assault and keep it in your file and recommend the complaint and contact politically active democratic lawyers? wouldn't it make sense to give the allegation to the fbi right away to conduct whatever investigation it saw fit? she didn't do that on a timely basis or to give judge kavanaugh a chance to refute that when she had plenty of opportunities to do so. and that plays an active role since early august and already engaged when he had his weeklong confirmation hearing and that point the lawyers had already system insisted that doctor ford take a polygraph although they will not share with anyone the underlying questions in the interview all they shared is the conclusion. but yet none of this the allegations of the lawyers and it is that responsibility of the nominee with that investigation and some written questions for the record that everybody in the country could w

indeed, chief judge garland joined in more than 96% of the majority opinions authored by judge kavanaugh, dissenting only once. despite all this, after weeks of reviewing judge kavanaugh's record and listening record and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the senate's advice and consent was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by professor christine blasey ford the confirmation process now involved a eevaluating whether or not judge kavanaugh committed sexual assault and lied about it to the judiciary committee. some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest courts, the public interest requires that -- bee resolved against the nominee. others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence.re in cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee. mr. president, i understand both viewpoints. eb this debate is complicatedrt further by the fact that the senate confirmation proce

i noted the qualifications for judges, their judicial temperament, the way they approach judging cases, their record of writing opinions, what they have said and how they have said it. that's the first thing we look at. but we also look at the whole person, and that's an appropriate thing to do. so let's look at judge kavanaugh's whole person. first of all, i would like to denote some things that i think are not relevant to his competence to serve on the supreme court, but which we have heard a lot about. not relevant are judge bork, justice thomas, or judge garland, or arguments about who started the unseemly process we're in now. by the way, let me just as an aside here note that in one of the interviews with a senator, the interview started as follows : judge kavanaugh, glad you came in today, but i can tell you that this is going to be very, very hard because of what happened to judge garland. well, you can have your views as to whether judge garland was treated fairly or not, but that should have no bearing on the qualifications of judge kavanaugh to be confirmed to the united sta

judge kavanaugh is an esteemed federal judge. i think his track record proves that he is a very good person. i just don't think everybody legal be drug through the process without the presumption of innocence. host: that was michael in georgia, wrapping up tonight's calls. at brettlook kavanaugh's senate confirmation. again, you can go to our website at www.c-span.org for more about today's events and everything that led up to it. more of your phone calls and information from today's events will be available on "washington journal those quote tomorrow at 7:00 eastern time. now, we will take you back to the final hours before the vote that took place today and what several senators had to say. >> in a few moments we will book to confirm george -- judge kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. gorsuch and justice sotomayor were confirmed 66 days after they were nominated. today marks the 90th day since president trump nominated judge kavanaugh. this is in line with the timeframe from previous justices. thisis different about n

judges must be temperate, judicious, evenhanded. judge kavanaugh is anything but. republican leaders knew before he was nominated that judge kavanaugh was a very flawed choice, but once president trump selected him, republicans decided they had to rush him through. they became a steam roller over truth, fairness, and our traditions of bipartisan cooperation. any means necessary to reach their desired end. they blamed dr. ford and democrats for judge kavanaugh's flaws. they were intent on shrouding the truth because they knew that if the truth came to light, judge kavanaugh would be exposed as a truly flawed nominee. so, my colleagues, my fellow americans, what is the appropriate response? our country needs to have a reckoning on these issues, and there is only one remedy. change must come from where change in america always begins the ballot box. so to americans, to so many millions who are outraged by what happened here, there's one answer: vote. if you believe dr. ford and other brave women who came forward and you want to vindicate their sacrifice, vote. if you

there were no unsavory allegations against judge scalia or judge alito, two judges that democrats opposebased on their right-wing, pro-dark money ideology. elevation to the supreme court for a lifetime appointment is not a right, it's a privilege. and while the republicans take great umbrage that judge kavanaugh's reputation is at take, the fact -- at stake, the fact is we have before us credible allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct and justice demands that he be called to answer those allegations. he should not get a pass. mr. president, i reviewed -- i've reviewed judge kavanaugh's decisions, writings, and speeches, all his testimony before the senate judiciary committee, the meager set of documents made available when he served as a white house lawyer and as part of the independent counsel kenneth starr's investigation. on the merits this nominee simply does not represent mainstream judicial thought. he is on the extreme edge, but the american people want a justice whose judicial philosophy falls within established parameters, a justice who is not on the far end of the

judge. i do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger, but i cannot condone the partisanship which was raw, undisguised negative conspiratorial for somebody who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. his of performance was wholly inconsistent with a congress we should expect from a member of the judiciary. that's from somebody who is abconservative and a -- a conservative and kavanaugh supporter. the courage that both kavanaugh 's friends and observers like whitease is showing realizes this guy is too much. i wish we saw a little more from the republican side because they know deep in their hearts this guy shouldn't be on the bench. we know they know. now the judge's partisanship at hearing raises questions, as i mentioned, but the biggest issue against judge kavanaugh, in my judgment, is credibility credibility, the number-one issue. does kavanaugh always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. whatever you think of what he did as a 17-

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's word against another? don't we either have to believe everything one says or another? do we know who to trust, whose word to accept, when allegations were made about something allegedly that happened 35 years ago with gaps in the story, inconsistencies? well, i think the first thing we have to do, madam president, is put these questions in the proper context. but here's the bottom line. this is not a case of he said, she said. it's a case of she said, they said. in other words, the allegations made by dr. ford are not confirmed or corroborated by any of the other people she said were present that day. one of those people she said was present was leland keyser, a female friend, one of her closest friends who said not only does she not remember being invol

ford and judge kavanaugh. these hijinks in the weaponization of the confirmation process, we have bent over backwards to try to accommodate dr. ford once she said she wanted to come for the committee. we know she requested confidentiality answer allegations were investigated. she did not consent to -- or authorize the release of her letter. she did not want a public spectacle. judiciary committee staff has been offered to fight a california on a bipartisan basis and interview her confidentially. this offer was not even shared with her by her partisan lawyers. said she never understood that offer was on the table. she thought the only way she could tell her story was the midst of the three ring circus that the hearing became. after the damage was done to dr. ford when her identity became known, we invited her to testify. she came and did so and i respect and admire her courage. respect and admire her courage. it could not have been easy. we listened respectfully to her story. we took it very seriously. we treat

is judge kavanaugh credible? will judge kavanaugh say anything? deny anything? mislead anything about anything to secure confirmation to the supreme court? does he have the integrity, the independence, the credibility to do the job? does judge kavanaugh deserve the promotion of a lifetime for a lifetime? these very serious questions about judge kavanaugh's state of mind and who he is today, not who he was in 1982, should weigh on the conscience of every senator. in my experience with judge kavanaugh in 2004, 2006, and again throughout this process, i have been left with the prescription that judge kavanaugh would disassemble, mislead, -- mislead senators about everything from the momentous to the mundane, whatever it takes to cast his nomination in the most favorable light. faced now with the gravest of allegations and the sincere testimony of a very courageous woman, i believe the senate should consider the issue of credibility to be front and center in deciding whether judge kavanaugh deserving a seat on the bench, an appointment -- a lifetime appointment to t

listen to judge kavanaugh himself. in 2016, w the university law review he wrote about the importance of judges steering clear of politics. he told them a good judge like a good umpire cannot act as a partisan. ithe said while it's good for se judges to come with a background of politics and policy, and again i'm quoting him, federal judges have to check any allegiance is at the door. to be a good judge and a good umpire, it is critical to have a proper demeanor and to keep our emotions in check and be the calm in the storm. he is not wrong. the code of conduct for the united states of judges backed him up. a judge should avoid impropriety and theoo activities. a judge should respect and comply with the wall and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the activity and impartiality of the judiciary. it further explains in the commentary that the impropriety occurs wheree the reasonable mid would conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament of a judge is impaired. confid

judge kavanaugh has not been truthful. george w. bush senate republican judiciary staff stole confidential information for democratic senators and staff indicated he knew under oath that the information was stolen but if you read the e-mail correspondence that is nearly impossible to believe that a sophisticated political operative like brett kavanaugh was wouldn't have understood that the information wouldn't have been obtained surreptitiously. there are also valid concerns that judge kavanaugh misrepresented givinganan his 24 confirmation hearing about his involvement with the george w. torture policy and with certain judicial nominations he handled as the white house counsel. his sworn testimony in 2004 and the recent hearings leave me highly skeptical judge kavanaugh has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth before congress. i cannot support a nominee to the supreme court without a high degree of certainty that has been 100% honest under oath. we demand nothing less. the rushed t judiciary hearing with judge kavanaugh i

ford and democrats for judge kavanaugh's flaws. they were intent on shrouding the truth because they knew that , judgetruth came kavanaugh would be exposed as a truly flawed nominee. , my fellowes americans, what is the appropriate response? our country needs a reckoning on these issues, and there is only one remedy, change must come from where change in america always begins. the ballot box. and so many millions who are outraged, there is one answer. .ote if you believe dr. ford and other brave women who came forward and want to vindicate the sacrifice, vote. if you believe the supreme court should uphold women's rights, vote. if you believe the supreme court must protect health care and our pre-existing conditions that are protected now, vote. court believe the supreme should defend consumers, workers, the environment, civil rights, populations, vote. if you believe the supreme court should be a check on an overreaching president, vote. if you believe the process here in the senate was a sham and you believe americans deserve bet

judge kavanaugh deserves the same thing as does the supreme court. this week after the investigation wasckgr supplemenl investigation from the fbi there will be a vote and i trust that judge kavanaugh will then finally be confirmed. and then hopefully the senate will come to its senses to realize how wrong or how embarrassing how disgraceful this process has been not only to doctor ford but to judge kavanaugh as well. mister president i hope and pray we will come to our senses and i yield the floor. >> mister president i come to the floor to raise concerns about the j nomination of judge kavanaugh to the supreme court. these concerns permeate every aspect of the nomination process and the nominee himself. when judge kavanaugh's name came forward because of the nomination by president trump it came from a list of 25 names. these names were assembled by the white house in consultation with just two groups. the heritage foundation and the federalist society both are far right organizations that have a review of public policy on most issues i don't agree

let's start with judge kavanaugh's record. judge kavanaugh has spent 12 years on the d.c. circuit court. his rulings demonstrate why radical right-wing groups and their friends in the senate are so eager to give him a seat on the supreme court. pick an issue, almost any issue, and there is ample reason to be alarmed. a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. when the donald trump sought to block a young immigrant woman's right to access abortion care, judge kavanaugh sided with the government, claiming that allowing the woman who had done everything necessary to obtain access to an abortion, should be further delayed in obtaining that care, a delay that would likely have prevented her from obtaining an abortion. and when religious organizations challenged the contraceptive care requirement of the affordable care act, judge kavanaugh again opposed reproductive care, arguing that requiring religious nonprofits to submit a simple form allowing them to opt out of providing comprehensive contraceptive coverage but ensuring that the employees had access to that care

judge kavanaugh's testimony very different. he spent more than 40 minutes testimony was very different. he spent more than 40 minutes ranting, raving and giving conspiracy theories and then he proceeded to insult senators to scream at people that had the nerve to question him. he evaded some questions and gave false answers to others. it was a performance that could have been at home in a republican primary campaign or donald trump rally but it was delivered by a judge asking the united states senate to confirm him to a lifetime appointment to a completely nonpolitical position as the swing vote on the united states supreme court. it is the job of the senate to decide whether or not to confirm judge kavanaugh. senators must vote yes or no elevating him to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. it is not a criminal trial. nobody entitled to an appointment on the supreme court. if he is not confirmed kavanaugh would be serving as a federal judge on the second highest court in the united states. for these reasons i believe d

kavanaugh and mark judge. she answered, delivering on her training, that it was indelible in the hippo campus is the laughter. i believe dr. ford when she says she was assaulted in that room in 1982. i believe dr. ford when she says her attackers locked the door, a hand was pressed over her mouth, and she feared for her life. i believe her when she said she remembers them laughing. for all the grueling prosecution, the republicans put dr. ford through, it's important to chair that to the treatment of -- to compare that to the treatment of brett kavanaugh. when it was kavanaugh's turn to deliver testimony, he was seething. he was raging in a manner completely unbecoming a federal judge. he based in a manner that directly contradicted what brett kavanaugh said in a widely publicly -- publicized speech a judge should be all about. in his own words, mr. kavanaugh said, judges need to keep their emotions in check. be calm amidst the storm. mr. kavanaugh failed his own test. his own test last week. he offered the mo

ford and judge kavanaugh. it was only when senator flake recognized what a sham the process was that he at least forced the republican leadership to do what they did not want to do and to dprea -- agree to a short f.b.i. investigation into the allegations of dr. ford and deborah ramirez. but the goal never changed. the goal of ramming through the nomination never changed. and that's why senate republicans in the white house dramatically limited the scope of the f.b.i. investigation. they tied the hands of the f.b.i. they told the f.b.i. who they could interview. an investigation that was already going to be short in about a week was cut even shorter and was finished up in a matter of days. and what's the result, mr. president? the result is completely predictable. the result is we have lots of key witnesses that say they have corroborating evidence to support the allegations of dr. ford and deborah ramirez who were not interviewed. and the country will continue to hear from these witnesses after today's vote b

others have suggested that the judge hold sixteen views some birth control in one case judge kavanah incurred the disfavor a both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing be involvement of employers with religious objections although his critics frequently overlook this point judge cavanagh's pinsent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest and facilitating access to contraception in fact he wrote that the supreme court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest in pacelle the taping access to birth control. there is also been considerable of focus on the future of abortion rights based on that concern by judge kavanah would seek to overturn roe v wade protecting this right is important to me to my knowledge judge kavanah is the first supreme court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition but rooted in article three of our constitution itself he believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy it is co

we'll not only be judged by voters this november, we're going to be judged by history. we say that a lot. sometimes it's overstated. in this case it is not. we're going to be judged by history in this regard. i would implore each of you who are still thinking this through, trying to figure out what is right thing to do. we are -- let's show that we have made progress since 1991 in a previous supreme court nomination confirmation episode. let's show that we're willing to take a stand and do the right thing. because if we're not, the short-term political winds will be eclipsed by the stains left on our legacies from this body in which there may be no recovery. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. inhofe: would the senator yield. a senator: i would. mr. inhofe: i ask that i be recognized for as much time as i should consume after the senator from missouri. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to talk a little bit. my good friend talked about being judged by histor

judge kavanaugh and honest. above all. judge kava naugh doesn‘t belong and honest. above all.avanaugh doesn‘t belong on the bench because he is an extreme partisan. something we have seen from his earliest days in his career. and, reconfirmed when he gave one of the bitterest, most partisan testimonies ever presented bya partisan testimonies ever presented by a nominee. judge kavanaugh doesn‘t belong on the bench because of his injudicious tamina. his partisan screed will go down ignominiously in history. and made it clear that it would be virtually impossible for him to rule impartially on the supreme court. judges must be temperate, judicious, evenhanded. judge kavanaugh is republican leaders knew before he was nominated thatjudge kavanaugh was nominated thatjudge kavanaugh was a very flawed choice, but once president trump selected him, republicans decided they had to rush him through. they became a steam roller over truth, fairness and our traditions of bipartisan cooperation. any means necessary to reach their desired end. they blamed doctor ford and democrats forjudge ka

judge kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12 year track record as a judge, including for hising. it's standing committee on the federaljudiciary conducted an extraordinarily furrow assessment soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues. they concluded that his integrity, itjudicial temperament and professional confidence met the highest standards. lisa black who has argued more cases before the supreme court than any other women in history testified, quote, by any objective measure, judge kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the supreme court. his opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair. miss black, who is an ardent admirer ofjustice ginsburg and who is in her own words and unapologetic defender of a woman's right to choose, says that judge kavanaugh fits within the mainstream of legal thought. she also observed thatjudge kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession. that judge kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and chiefjudge garland voted

judges must be temperate, judicious, evenhanded. judge kavanaugh is anything but. republican leaders knew before he was nominated that judge kavanaugh was a very flawed choice, but once president trump selected him, republicans decided they had to rush him through. they became a steam roller over truth, fairness, and our traditions of bipartisan cooperation. any means necessary to reach their desired end. they blamed dr. ford and democrats for judge kavanaugh's flaws. they were intent on shrouding the truth because they knew that if the truth came to light, judge kavanaugh would be exposed as a truly flawed nominee. so, my colleagues, my fellow americans, what is the appropriate response? our country needs to have a reckoning on these issues, and there is only one remedy. change must come from where change in america always begins the ballot box. so to americans, to so many millions who are outraged by what happened here, there's one answer: vote. if you believe dr. ford and other brave women who came forward and you want to vindicate their sacrifice, vote. if you

, chief judge, most senior judge or three-judge panel. we suggest also that complainants be able to request the transfer of their proceedings provided they have reason to believe their complaint will not be properly addressed in its original circuit. we further suggest that rule 5 be amended to enable any circuit judge or district judge to identify a complaint based on information not only the chief judge. the flexibility achieved through the creation of these additional reporting channels provides complainants a degree of choice in shaping the proceedings and by removing a significant disincentive for filing complaints [ inaudible ] the rule system as a whole. thank you so much for your time and attention. >> thank you very much. miss gillis, are you ready to go ahead? then we will have questions after. >> good afternoon. my name is rita gillis. i'm a second year student at yale law school. i'm also entering my testimony on behalf of the working group you just heard my peer describe. my testimony today will focus specifically on the new