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

like judge kavanaugh, she had participated in public office. she had served. but unlike the kavanaugh confirmation process, the kagan process included the release of nearly document related to her time in service. in fact, no one has found an example of so much of a nominee's record in government being hidden from the senate and hidden from the public as in judge kavanaugh's case. the rushed and secretive process that has characterized judge kavanaugh's nomination raises this question: what is he hiding? why doesn't he insist that his record be made public? why doesn't he want a full investigation of the sexual assault claims made against him? and why won't republicans insist on transparency and a meaningful investigation? evidently neither judge kavanaugh nor the senate republicans care about the facts. judge kavanaugh has been accused of sexually assaulting multiple women. dr. christine blasey ford and deborah ramirez shared their stories of sexual assault at the hands of judge kavanaugh and risked their safety and the safety of their families to do so. neff

judge kavanaugh disagreed. the other judge dissented apart, noting judge kavanaugh majority pine would allow the secretary of defense to abolish collective bargaining all the, a position which even the secretary descreegz. if the supreme court decision in heller, a 5-4 decision in 2008, that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. dc pass ad law that prohibited assault weapons and high capacity magazines that require certain firearms to be registered. this is we know the heller decision, we know the importance of it, but after the district passed a law while involving assault weapons and high capacity magazines, the azsame plaintiff, richard heller argued that the new gun law violated the second amendment. in the 2011 case in heller vs. district clum leah. a panel of judges ruled 2 to 1 that the dc ban on assault weapons and high capacity mag yeans wereap constitutional. it happened to be three republican judges, the rulings was 2 to 1. you guessed it judge kavanaugh was the dissenter,

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

before left-wing outside groups and democratic leaders had him in their sights, judge kavanaugh possessed an impeccable reputation and was held in high esteem by the bench and the bar alike. even the american bar association, which the democrats say is their gold standard for judging judges, the a.b.a. gave him their unanimous well-qualified rating. what left-wing groups and their democratic allies have done to judge kavanaugh is nothing short of monstrous. i saw what they did to robert bork. i saw what they did to clarence thomas. that was nothing compared to what we've 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 that he would oppose judge kavanaugh's nomination with everything he's got. even before he knew the president's nominee, the minority leader said that he was opposed to all 25 well-qualified potential nominees listed by this president. even one member of my committee said tha

judge kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed to the supreme court. the process that republicans have used to advance his nomination. from the moment president trump announced judge kavanaugh'sud nomination republicans have worked overtime to get him on the supreme court without getting senators were the american people a meaningful opportunity to examine his full record. senate republicans have played an elaborate game at every step in the process. judge kavanaugh spent many years in government at the republicans have refused even to request hundreds of thousands of documents from his timerv in service. they've designated other documents as, quote committee confidential to hide them from the public and to top it off justbe days before judge kavanaugh was scheduled to come before the senate judiciary committee the bush white house attorney announced that over 100,000 documents from judge kavanaugh's time in the white house counsel office would be withheld on the basis of constitutional privilege. a few years ago,ma president obama nominated elena kagan

judge kavanaugh one - - kavanaugh at his hearing answers for the questions did not give any additional comfort of his nomination his testimony in judicial record reveal a disturbing pattern he has a conservative agenda to disregard precedent to reach the desired outcome he could serve as a rubberstamp of the trump administration judge kavanaugh has several opportunities to stand up for the independence of the judiciary with the rule of law and has refused to condemn the attacks on justice ginsburg mexican heritage, or a recall by contrast for judge course which that he said when anybody criticize the honesty and integrity that is demoralizing because i know it's not the truth. judge kavanaugh would not even go that far. he refused to comment on president trumps repeated attempts about criminal prosecution or the department of justice. his testimony following doctor ford's testimony is particularly troubling to get members of the judiciary committee the partisan attacks and conspiracy theories to reveal real concern about impartiality and temperament if he would be for the court the peo

that wasn't the first time i had met judge kavanaugh. in fact, i had known him back when we served together in the bush administration. i knew him as an honest and dedicated public servant, and i actually followed his career as a judge on the d.c. circuit u.s. court of appeals. the lengthy meeting in my office convinced me that he is someone who will interpret the law and constitution as written. he understands the importance of separation of powers and federalism, holds a healthy skepticism regarding the expansive power of federal agency in that he is a strong protector of the second amendment. all issues that are very important to my constituents that they care deeply about, which is why i focused on these issues in my discussions with judge kavanaugh in my office several weeks ago. i was convinced then and remain so that he is well qualified to be a justice on the united states supreme court. but, mr. president, as we all know, after a number of these meetings, several weeks in my case after meeting with judge kavanaugh, two issues aro

we're about to vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination, as we should be. i can't help but reflect on the process of getting here. i'd like to ask my democrat colleagues if this is what they think the process should look like going forward. do they really think that supreme court confirmation should be characterized by intense partisanship and unsubstantiated character attacks? do they really want to do away with the presumption of innocence and allow innuendo to substitute for evidence? do they really think it's okay to stop at nothing to tank a nomination? mr. president, tomorrow and saturday i will be casting my vote for judge kavanaugh. i'll be voting for him because he is supremely qualified. we all know that. the democrats know that. i'll be voting for him because he is a man of character and integrity and i will be voting for him because i know that he can be relied on to uphold the rule of law and the constitution. and i invite not just my republican but my independent-thinking democrat colleagues to join me. it's not too late to say no to the polit

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 kavanaugh claims that he and dr. ford quote did not travel in the same social circles, end quote. dr. ford says she dated chris garrett, reference as a parent interview book. in fact, she testified garrett introduced her to kavanaugh. kavanaugh claimed numerous times in response to dr. ford's allegations that quote, all four witnesses say it didn't happen, and that witnesses refuted dr. ford story. yet one of the witnesses simply said she didn't remember the party in question took place decades ago, but that, in fact, she believed dr. ford. kavanaugh testified that quote no connections to jail but, in fact, he was a legacy student whose grandfather attended the school. have also claims that he had no idea that his mental and good friend alex kozinski with sexual harassing his clerks and creating a hostile work environment. but it was such his behavior with such an open secret that some law schools were warning potential applicants to stay away from kaczynski. kavanaugh claims he is not on kaczynski infamous e-mail li

judge kavanaugh is on record. it is a matter of policy that he believes a sitting president should be immune from criminal investigation while in office, no matter the crime. and he has refused to tell the senate and the american people whether he believes that. as a matter of constitutional law, a sitting president may be investigated and indicted. i, for one, believe that under the constitution, if a president commits a crime, the rule of law still stands, that the constitution gives no immunity to a president who is a criminal. this nomination will shape the course of the supreme court and american law and lives for decades. we must have a nominee who has been fully vetted, who does not stand credibly accused of sexual assault, whose honesty before the senate and the american people cannot be questioned, whose judicial record fits within mainstream jurisprudence, and who believes that no one -- not even the president -- is above the law. judge kavanaugh is not that nominee. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr.

those are judge kavanaugh's phrases. d or overlooked. its roots in the constitution gives the concept of... it cannot be trimmed or narrowed simply because the judge might want to on simply because the judge might want toona simply because the judge might want to on a whim. in short, his views on honouring precedent would preclude attempts by stealth that which one has committed not to do. noting that roe vs wade was decided 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later, in planned parenthood versus kc, i asked judge kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to the following precedent. he said decisions become part of other legal framework with the passage of time and that honouring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. every discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the supreme court relied in griswold versus connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraception is. griswold established the legal foundation that led to roe eight years later. in describi

consider what judge brett kavanaugh has to say. what would judge brett kavanaugh say about supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh's appearance before the judiciary committee? well, in 2015, judge brett kavanaugh gave a speech at the catholic university on what makes a good judge. he set forth litmus tests for a good judge. the characteristics and qualities he or she must have. here's what he said then. brett kavanaugh said, quote, first and obviously a good judge, like a good umpire, cannot act like a partisan. he went on to say that it is very important for a judge, quote, to avoid any semblance of that partisanship that political background. yet, in his opening statement to the judiciary committee, his opening statement judge kavanaugh launched into a nakedly partisan screed. he blamed democratic senators for a conspiracy to destroy his nomination. he called the recent allegations against him a part of some revenge of the clintons. he told the democratic senators on the dais that what goes around comes around making an unvarnished

ford and judge kavanaugh. still, despite these high jinks and the weaponization of the confirmation process, we went -- we bent over backwards to try to accommodate dr. ford once she said she wanted to come before the committee. we know she requested confidentiality as her allegations were investigated. she did not consent to nor authorize the release of her letter. she didn't want a public spectacle. the judiciary committee staff even offered to fly to california on a bipartisan basis and interview her confidentially. but this offer was not even shared with her by her partisan lawyers. in other words, she said she never understood that offer was on the table. she thought the only way she could tell her story is in the midst of the three-ring circus that that hearing became. but after dr. ford, the damage to her was done when her identity became known, we invited dr. ford to testify. she came and did so, and i respect and admire her courage. it could not have been easy. we listened respectfully to her story. w

and the flashing red light warning sign at the center of judge kavanaugh's jurisprudence are his views on executive power and accountability. somehow, this conservative judge and scholar of the constitution sees at the heart of american democracy, a president kum king, an executive who is unaccountable to the laws he's sworn to unhold. a head of state who while in office should be beyond the reach of subpoenas, criminal investigations, or civil investigations. this moment in american history demands deep skepticism about judge kavanaugh's views on executive power. nominated as he was by an executive who disdained the constraints of his office and who is at this very moment the apparent subject of investigations his supreme court nominee believes should be invalid. i met with judge kavanaugh for almost two hours. i asked him about all of those issues. his answers were constantly evasive and utterly unsatisfactory. it was deja vu all over again in the first round of hearings. when judge kavanaugh deliberately avoided talking about his views on roe, health care, presidential accountabilit

but judge kavanaugh doesn't have a judge or a jury in this confirmation process that has an open mind. all of the senate democrats on the judiciary committee have said they unequivocally oppose his confirmation. so what do they expect this additional supplemental investigation to disclose that might possible persuade them that they were wrong? well, it's not about a search for the truth. this is about search and destroy. i've said this is the thing that i hate most about washington d.c. the political environment we find ourselves in. it's not just about winning an argument. it's not just about winning an election. or winning a vote in the congress. it's about the politics of personal destruction. that's what we're seeing here. and it's an orchestrated effort from start to finish. that's why i think this is such an embarrassment to the senate. and if we somehow decide that people can be essentially convicted of a crime based on an allegation with no evidence, what does that say about our commitment to the constitution itself, due process of law, the presumption of guilt. i know our col

judge kavanaugh deserves the same thing as does supreme court. this week after the investigation, supplemental background investigation of the fbi concludes there will be a vote and i trust that judge kavanaugh and will then finally be confirmed. and hopefully the senate will come to it senses and realize how wrong, how embarrassing, how disgraceful this process has been not only to dr. ford, but to judge kavanaugh as well. mr. president, i hope and pray we will come to our senses. i yield the floor. >> thank you, mr. president. they come to the floor to raise concerns about the nomination of judge burke, not to the supreme court. these concerns i didn't permeate every aspect of the nomination process in the nominee himself. when judge kavanaugh's name came forward because those the nomination t by president trump, he came from a list of 25 names. these names were assembled by the white house in consultation with the record indicates just two groups. the heritage foundation and the federalist society. both are far right organizations that have a

here's one more from a speech judge kavanaugh gave in 2015. first and most obviously, a judge cannot be a political partisan. i think most americans would agree with that. i certainly do. a lodestar in our consideration of judicial confirmation should be whether a nominee is independent and within the ideological mainstream. the judge kavanaugh we saw last thursday did not meet the standard laid out in his past statements. his prepared statement to the committee, prepared -- if you will, malice aforethought -- accused sitting u.s. senators of a phony smear campaign lambasted, quote, left-wing opposition groups and portrayed the recent allegations, the allegations of dr. ford, miss ramirez, the third person who came forward, miss swetnick -- he portrayed those as revenge on behalf of the clintons. frankly, judge kavanaugh's testimony was better suited for fox news than a confirmation hearing for the august united states supreme court. but that's in character with judge kavanaugh's long history of working for the most partisan legal causes -- ken

, not judge kavanaugh. then brett kavanaugh who had assaulted her. when i watched her testimony from beginning to end, the conclusion i reached was that she was both credible and persuasive. i believed her. and i think a lot of americans did as well. maybe more than half of americans did. but i know i did. and i also believe that judge kavanaugh's response, his response that same day on thursday to these credible allegations has cast even greater doubt on his credibility. now, also cast doubt on his temperament and his ability to serve as an impartial jurist. i think anyone, even a supporter of judge kavanaugh's nomination could have been troubled by his demeanor and i'll use the word again, temperament, when he came before the committee. after dr. ford presented her moving testimony, judge kavanaugh responded with explosive anger and partisan attacks on virtually all democrats. i was surprised that he did that. no one would begrudge him the opportunity and the necessity, if he felt it were necessary, to den

own statements even though no supplemental information and the irony of where we find ourselves judge kavanaugh said a fair process starts with an open min mind. and listening tos. both sides to not have a judge or jury in the confirmation process all the senate done democrats to unequivocally oppose the confirmation so what about the supplemental investigation to disclose? it's not about a search for the truth but search and destroy. this is what i hate most about washington dc, the political environment we find ourselves. not just winning an argument or an election. or congress but the politics of personal destruction. that is what we are seeing here and the orchestrated effort from start to finish that's why i think this is such an embarrassment to the senate and if we somehow decide people can be convicted of a crime with the allegation of no evidence, what does that say about the commitment to the constitution itself? presumption of guilt? colleagues will say this is a job interview. this isn't just a job interview or even about judge kavanaugh or the confirmation process this is our natio

the laughter between brett kavanaugh and mark judge she will never forget. the fact that she is 100% sure it was brett kavanaugh who attacked her. millions of people watched her, and so many women and survivors were inspired by her bravery. mr. president, dr. ford made a credible allegation of a serious offense that needs to be taken seriously. we've also heard from other women, miss ramirez, miss swetnick with their own experiences to share. they should be listened to. they should be heard. we should presume they are telling the truth and republican leaders should allow a full investigation into their allegations. because in the end, despite what some republicans tried to claim, this is not a trial. we are not supposed to weigh evidence and make judgment about innocence or guilt. our job as senators is to weigh what we know, weigh what we hear, weigh what we learn and use our own judgment to determine whether a nominee deserves a promotion to the highest court in the land. and based on everything i know about the allegations made against judge kavanaugh, he

i'm pleased to support judge kavanaugh's confirmation. i'm sorry for what the whole family went through the last several weeks. we should all admire kavanaugh's willingness to serve his country despite the way he's been treated. it would be a travesty, then, if the senate did not confirm the most qualified nomination in our nation's history. the multitude of allegations against him have proven to be false. they've also proven that no discussion of his qualifications came up with any discussion of his qualifications, nothing showed he wasn't qualified. we had a campaign of distraction from his outstanding qualifications. a campaign of destruction of this fine individual. what we have learned is the resistance that has existed since the day after the november 16th, 2016 election, is centered right here on capitol hill. they have encouraged mob rule. when you hear things about get in their face, bother people at every restaurant where you can find a cabinet member, these are coming from public service. that ought to send an example of civilit

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 app

at the end of the day, judge kavanaugh judge kavanaugh's hysterical political rant confirmed what many of us already knew about this man. he's a political operative cloaked in judicial robes. as kavanaugh said himself, quote, what goes around comes around. does this souped like the words of an impartial, independent judge? never before in my life have i seen a nominee let alone a supreme court nominee behave as though he was entitled to this lifetime appointment. he's not. it's the american people who are entitled to a justice who tells the truth, who conducts himself in a dignified manner, a justice who doesn't face credible accusations of sexual assault. the supreme court deserves better than brett kavanaugh and so do the american people. and more than a thousand legal scholars and counting agree, coming out against kavanaugh's nomination because his partisan and venomous rhetoric has no place on the supreme court. this process has pursuant to poisoned the confirmation process. it was senate republicans who orchestrated the theft of a supreme court seat with more than nine months lef

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 was asked about other personal matters that came up during the course of the background investigation. the ranking member didn't even attend that closed-door session. nor did anybody mention it to the judge when he went to talk to some 60-plus members of the senate one on one. the ranking member when she had that one-on-one meeting with judge kavanaugh, she said nothing to him about the allegations. she could have asked him about the allegation generally without revealing the identity of dr. ford. we know at that point she had already talked to dr. ford and recommended partisan lawyers. we know that those lawyers arranged for a polygraph examination to be administered. other preparations were being made, plans were being hatched. and our colleague from california said nothing. i really think that dr. ford has been treated terribly by this ambush, by this hiding evidence and allegations that could have been investigated, should have been investigated in a more dignified and appropriate sort of way. once dr. ford was identified in consultation with colleagues, both republi

president, we have heard a lot of charges and counter charges about judge kavanaugh. but if those are have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father. despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that brett kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the supreme court so that we have -- 5-4er 5 -- four decisions and so public confidence in our judiciary in our higher court is restored. president, i will vote to confirm judge kavanaugh. thank you. [applause] mr. president, i have come to the floor this evening evening y thoughts on what has been an extraordinarily long and difficult and truly painful process. as we -- as we took up the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court, the process that led us to this vote today has been, in my view, a horrible process, a gut-wrenching process. where good

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

those are judge kavanaugh's phrases. as the judge asserted to me a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked. its roots in the constitution give the concept of stair decisis greater weight such that the precedent can't be trimmed or narrowed simply because the judge might want to on a whim. in short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly. noting that roe v wade was decided 40 years -- 45 years ago and reaffirmed 19 years later, in planned parenthood versus casey, i asked judge kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. he said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. our discussion then turned to the right of privacy, on which the supreme court relied in griswold versus connecticut, a case that struck down the law banning the use and sale of contracepti contr

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

just yesterday nbc news reported that either judge kavanaugh or people close to judge were in communication withe his yale classmates to get them -- allegations by deborah ramirez later published in "the new yorker." beyond the unseemliness of a federal judge pressuring former class a mates to support his nomination -- classmates to support hisha nomination, it ses judge kavanaugh was at least very misleading to judiciary committee about ms. ramirez's story. when asked by senator hatch when he first heard of ramirez's allegations, he answered, quote, in "the new yorker" story. based on the nbc reports, if they're correct, that was not truthful. and it would be one thing if thatat were one isolated incide. habut again, there are far too many misstatements, far too many inaccuracies, far too many misexacterrizations. he pled ignorance to many bush era controversies only for e-mails to be released showing he was aware of them all and played a role in many. he offered explanation for high school yearbook quotes. and it's not the quotes themselves or what they indicated, it's his explanations so

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

the stakes are high for judge kavanaugh and for our nation. if the senate confirms kavanaugh, he will replace anthony kennedy. the supreme court's crucial swing vote on issues like marriage equality and women's rights. kavanaugh is a conservative and could tip the scales to the right for generations to come. at the moment, the likely decider is the senator from maine. and she's about to speak on the senate floor. live pictures outside senator susan collins' office right now. let's listen. ♪ the pressure on susan collins could not be greater. this moment is of her own making. senator collins could have announced her decision prior to this moment. she's been seen speaking with lisa murkowski, the republican of alaska for much of the day. she was seen exiting a lunch with others and leaders from the republican leadership. mitch mcconnell said to have been happy and doing well after that and seeming confident. what does it mean? we'll know in a moment. susan collins will leave her office, go to the senate floor and announce her decision she's told

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

and praising judge brett kavanaugh for doing everything possible he can to step up against his case to say he will be fair in judging the cases as they come to him on the supreme court to make his case he will be a fair jurist going forward. and so there is definitely a lot of anxiety. >> the well was poisoned from the outset when president trump selected judge kavanaugh from a list of names pre-approved by hard right special interest groups for whom the national interest is a trifling concern compared to repealing roe versus wade, cutting people's healthcare, and achieving a partisan majority on the supreme court. the rot worsened when the republican majority on the judiciary committee shielded the bulk of judge kavanaugh's records from the public, discarding decades of precedent and thwarting norms of transparency and fairness and finally the dam broke under the weight of credible allegations that judge kavanaugh committed a sexual assault in high school. in 2018, the republican majority conducted a hearing that made the anita hill hearings in 1991 look fair by comparison

her to the bed -- i believe her and the reason it's critical is not the additional before that judge kavanaugh was not telling the truth about his high school drinking or the obvious misogyny in his yearbook, or kavanaugh who passed out from drunkenness, all of us here know he wasn't telling the truth in his testimony about that. the reason we need a thorough investigation is that these women have offered credible accusations, they've identified potential corroborating witnesses into evidence and the senate needs to know all the facts before placing to the highest court for a lifetime appointment. a thorough investigation is essential for another reason we simply cannot take judge kavanaugh on his word. on issues big and small, anytime judge kavanaugh has been faced with questions and placed in the middle of controversy, he's shown he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. every single time he's testified before the senate over the years, he has misled and dissembled. he misled the senate about his role in a hacking scandal or confirming judicial nominees or the legal justification for some of t

listen to judge kavanaugh himself. in 2016 in the catholic university law review, he wrote about the importance of judges steering clear of politics. he told his readers that, quote, a good judge, like a good umpire, cannot act as a partisan, end quote. he says that while it is good for some judges to come with a background in politics or policy and again i'm quoting him, federal judges have to check any prior political allegiances at the door. you have to shed them, end quote. based on judge kavanaugh's testimony last week, it certainly doesn't sound like he has shed his partisan convictions and connections and in the same law review article judge kavanaugh wrote that, quote, to be a good judge and a good umpire, it is critical to have the proper demeanor. it is important to keep our emotions in check and be calm amidst the storm. he's not wrong. indeed, the code of conduct for united states judges back him up. cannen two of the code says, quote, a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all

those are judge kavanaugh's praises. as the judge asserted to me a long established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded or overlooked. its roots in the constitution give the concept of starry desize is, greater weight such that the precedent can't be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim. his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do over again. noting that roe v wade was decided 40 years, 45 years ago, and reaffirmed 19 years later in planned parenthood versus casey, i asked judge kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. he said decisions become part of the legal framework with the passage of time and honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. our discussion then turned to the right of privacy on which the supreme court relied in griswald versus connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning use and sale of contraceptions. griswald established

listen to judge kavanaugh himself. in 2016 in the catholic university law review he wrote about the importance of judges steering clear of politics. he told his readers that, quote, a good judge like a good umpire cannot act as a partisan. end quote. he said that while it is good for some judges to come with a background in politics or policy -- again i'm quoting him -- federal judges have to check any prior political allegiances at the door. you have to shed them. end quote. based on judge kavanaugh's testimony last week, it certainly doesn't sound like he has shed his partisan convictions and connections. and in the same law review article, judge kavanaugh wrote that, quote, to be a good judge and a good umpire, it is critical to have the proper demeanor. it is important to keep our emotions in check and be calm amidst the storm. he's not wrong. indeed, the code of conduct for united states judges back him up . cannon 2 of the code says a judge should avoid improoperate -- impropriety and in all activities. a judge so

the laughter between brett kavanaugh and mark judge she will never forget. the fact that she is 100% sure it was brett kavanaugh who attacked her. millions of people watched her, and so many women and survivors were inspired by her bravery. mr. president, dr. ford made a credible allegation of a serious offense that needs to be taken seriously. we've also heard from other women, miss ramirez, miss swetnick with their own experiences to share. they should be listened to. they should be heard. we should presume they are telling the truth and republican leaders should allow a full investigation into their allegations. because in the end, despite what some republicans tried to claim, this is not a trial. we are not supposed to weigh evidence and make judgment about innocence or guilt. our job as senators is to weigh what we know, weigh what we hear, weigh what we learn and use our own judgment to determine whether a nominee deserves a promotion to the highest court in the land. and based on everything i know about the allegations made against judge kavanaugh, he

now, that is what a vote against judge kavanaugh implies a vote against judge kavanaugh is a yes vote for more search and destroy efforts against those judicial nominees and ambushing of the nominees after crucial information is withheld weeks at a time.ll people know how the senate operates on the basis of precedent. want something has been done , it is precedent for things that will be done in the future and if this is the new precedent for the united states senate then a vote against kavanaugh is a yes vote love these despicable tactics time and time again in the future. coathanger sent to the offices of some o colleagues fundraising bribes being offered mobs attacking senators and their families at restaurants. the american people deserve final and definitive resolution to this t process. 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

is now now, i first want to say what judge kavanaugh is not. e 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 to evaluate a case before the court, and he is not that kind of judge. he is a judge that wants to apply the law in the right way and to reach the decision that the law requires based upon precedent, based upon the way that the constitution or, if appropriate, statutes are to be interpreted in order to reach the right result in the case. one of my colleagues on the judiciary committee i think got us off on the wrong foot -- or tried to get us off the on the wrong foot in this regard. he can a i am to one of the hearings with a presentation -- he came to one of the hearings with a presentation on how many times judge kavanaugh allegedly ruled for corporations over individuals and concluded that this was

and the flashing red light warning sign at the center of judge kavanaugh's jurisprudence are his views on executive power and accountabilities. somehow this conservative judge and scholar of the constitution sees at the heart of american democracy a president whom king, an executive unaccountable to the laws he's sworn to uphold. a head of state who while in office should be beyond the reach of subpoenas, criminal investigations or civil investigations. this moment in american history demands deep skepticism about judge kavanaugh's views on executive power. nominated as he was by an executive who disdains the constraints of his office and who is at this very moment the apparent subject of investigations his supreme court nominee believes should be invalid. i met with judge kavanaugh for almost two hours. i asked him about all of those issues. his answers were constantly evasive and utterly unsatisfactory. it was deja vu all over again in the first round of hearings when judge kavanaugh deliberately avoided talking about his views on roe, healthcare, presidential accountability and more