to me, justice kennedy is a mentor, a friend, and a hero. as a member of the court, he was a model of civility and collegiality. he fiercely defended the independence of the judiciary. and he was a champion of liberty. if you had to sum up justice kennedy's entire career in one word, liberty. justice kennedy established a legacy of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. i'm here today with another of my judicial heroes, my mom. 50 years ago this week in september, 1968, my mom was 26 and i was three. at that time my mom started as a public school teacher at mckinley tech high school here in washington d.c. 1968 was a difficult time for race relations in our city and our country. mckinley tech had an almost entirely african-american student body. it was east of the park. i vividly remember days as a young boy sitting in the back of my mom's classroom as she taught american history to a class of african-american teenagers, her students were born before brown versus board of education or bowling versus sharp. by her example, my mom taught me

after law school, he clerked for justice anthony kennedy, the justice he would succeed. he spent 12 years on the nation's most prestigious court of appeals. united states court of appeals for the district of colombia circuit. his opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair and many are known as instant classics. not just because they are important, but because they are written so clearly and well. the supreme court has adopted the reasoning and his opinions more than a dozen times. judge kavanaugh's judicial temperment is also flawless. he has meticulously prepared and treats litigants with respect asking probing questions of both sides. he approaches judging by determining what the law requires no matter his personal preference. judge kavanaugh taught at the nation's top law schools, published thoughtful law review articles and has set judicial precedent and just mentioned the aba strongly endorsed him because "he meets the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperment." on a personal level, i just can't say enough nice things abou

but judge kavanaugh's nomination to replace justice kennedy imperils the court's ability to continue to hold the line on reproductive freedom. in garcia, the only abortion case to come before him, judge kavanaugh voted to block a young woman to him -- receiving a more secure and insist she really pregnant against her wishes. weeks after she made heraf decision and after she completed all of the state impose requirements. although he claimed to fall supreme court precedent in garza, judge kavanaugh's opinions against a skeptical view of these precedence of you this completely outut of step wh the high court own view of those cases. despite his claims during his confirmation hearings that he was expecting supreme court precedent on minors andin abortion, in fact, his dissent shows the opposite. he ignored the supreme court's holdinghe in 1979 that allows buyers to complete a confidential judicial bypass in blue of parental or guardian consent. jane doe had already met the text of our bit of a judicial bypass her case came before judge kavanaugh so for the delay to seek a sponsor was wh

judge kavanaugh clerked for justice kennedy. now, justice kennedy is a republican. he was appointed by a republican president, ronald reagan, and yet in one of the biggest cases of his career, he sides with four democrat appointees on the same-sex marriage case. let's take john roberts. john roberts was a republican, confirmed by a republican senate, nominated by a republican president. in the biggest case of his life, the obamacare case he provided the fifth vote to uphold obamacare, joining four democratic appointees to the supreme court. so, what you really are looking for, because you cannot predict the issues that are going to arise 15 years from now. it's hard to do. who would've predicted that three judges appointed by richard nixon, harry blackmun, for whom my brother clerked, warren burger, and lewis powell, would all rule against richard nixon, famously in the nixon tapes case? robert jackson was an attorney general of the united states under franklin roosevelt, a staunch democrat. he ruled against harry truman in a famous case involving a seizure of steel

because the law compelled in justice kennedy showed us in the case that we don't make decisions based on policy preferences or of the moment. justice kennedy's example is what we try to follow not prosecution or pro- defense and i have ruled for parties that is part of being in independent judge ruling for the party no matter who they are so long as the party is right if you have those bitter arguments in my courtroom you will win. >> i want to talk to you this morning about guns. my office wrote the assault weapons legislation in 1883. and then it is prohibited with the assault weapons it did not affect possession. it did work and it was important to watch case over case like the school shootings. i never thought this would happen with the semi- odd day -- some may automatic weapon toau shoot down children and staff. and with assault weapons you specifically argued the d.c. assault weapons ban was unconstitutional. what did you base your conclusion that assault weapons and what evidence or study did you use to do that? >> thank you senator feinstein for the question.n.us i understand

i also talked to a local law professor who has known justice kennedy for 15 years. he said he was not surprised at all that justice kennedy would not comment on this highly political debate over kavanaugh. in fact, he said he would be really surprised if any of the sitting justices commented at all. tom jensen. >> okay. thank you. >>>? you want to watch clips of the wrangling, we put it our website. you can see everything from jeff flake's call for the fbi investigation to the democrats walking out. all on our website. >>> a new bad road list is out and it is a long list. i want to show you the map. almost 400 miles of san jose roads in desperate need of repair. community leaders say they'll get worse unless somebody swings into action. >> reporter: this is one of the reasons the street is on that list. potholes up and down the roadway. this is far from the only street that got a failing grade on the latest report card. this is one of the big reasons the city says sherlock drive is in such a rough spot. >> san jose has a lot of streets in bad shape. >> and sherlock

to me justice kennedy's a mentor, a friend and a hero. as a member of the court, he was a model of civility and collegiately. he fiercely defended the independence of the judiciary and he was a champion of liberty. if you had to sum up justice kennedy's entire career in one word, liberty. justice kennedy established a legacy of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. i'm here today with another of my judicial heroes, my mom. 50 years ago this week in september 1968 my mom was 26 and i was 3. at that time my mom started as a public school teacher at mckinley tech high school here in washington, d.c. 1968 was a difficult time for race relations in our city and our country. mckinley tech had an almost entirely african-american student body. it was east of the park. i vividly remember days as a young boy sitting in the back of my mom's classroom as she taught american history to a class of african-american teenagers, her students were born before brown versus board of education or bowling versus sharp. my mom taught me the importance of equa

they both agree on the begin with, 13 times justice kennedy been in majority, vindicated an opinion by kavanaugh. trish: over to david, we're trying to straddle two different themes here as i talk about what kind of justice kavanaugh would be, i also want to go to the political elements of all of this, the theater we're seeing going on backstage so to speak. cory booker being the latest to add some drama to it all, and, david, get your opinion how that will affect this process? and how that is affecting sentiment there. not just on capitol hill, but within the country? >> first let's keep in mind that supreme court hearings are where u.s. senators envision themselves as movie stars and love to have their camera time and have their lines before the camera. second, let's keep in mind that democrats have a choice to make. particularly those in competitive elections this year. they can make voters in their state angry by not voting for kavanaugh, or they can make the liberal, progressive donor base upset with them and cut their money off so they can't run the campaign they need to run. so

thorough takedown of the individual mandate pick he would go on to clerk for the supreme court justice kennedy that year for the next year and they held or heard the challenge and according to him your opinion was a roadmap for the dissenting justices. the ones who struck down the affordable care act. you wrote the quote road map and could one conclude that you have voted to knock it down if you are on the supreme court? >> i concluded in one case that i of -- upheld the affordable care act. in the case you are not -- talking about i did not reap the benefits. my opinion has been described as a roadmap for both sides because i described both positions. it wasn't a roadmap at all because -- >> a takedown.>> i speak for myself and my own opinions speak for themselves.>> chairman wants to close the questioning. we can leave it with that.>> before i call on the senator, the minority has requested a third round of questions and that is perfectly legitimate it may make your day longer but we did the same thing and agreed to eight minute rounds. senator has given his additional eight minutes and she

born in washington in 1965, kavanaugh went to yale law school, clerk for justice kennedy, and played a role in forwarding president george bush's judicial nominees. we will hear from those who know him best, legal scholars, former law clerks, old friends, and his pastor. first up, his confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006 for

, this is going to be a more conservative supreme court because justice kennedy who often joined with the liberals in some high-profile cases are gone and there probably won't be a swing justice on this supreme court for many more years to come. >> didn't justice kennedy more or less hand pick brett kavanaugh? i made, he made it known to president trump that this was somebody, his former clerk, that he would like to see nominated? >> yeah, but i don't think he was the definitive role in choosing -- i don't buy either the idea that justice kennedy was persuaded to think about retiring because neal gorsuch came on the court a formal clerk or that he felt more comfortable because they were going to nom nail the judge kavanaugh. we have reasonable reason to believe that justice kennedy was told that he was one of the finalists that the president was considering. could you read that in news reports as well. perhaps that was a factor in his decision to step down. but in terms of choosing brett kavanaugh as the successor as opposed to say ray kethledge or any of the other ones that were

to me, justice kennedy is a mentor, a friend, and a hero.a member of the court, he was a model of civility and clehe fiercely defended the independence of the judiciary. and he was a champion of liberty. if you had to sum up justice kennedy's entire career in one word, liberty. justice kennedy established a legacy of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. i'm here today with another of my judicial heroes. my mom. 50 years ago this week, in september 1968, my mom was 26 and i was 3. at that time, my mom started as a public schoolteacher at mckinley tech high school here in washington, d.c. 1968 was a difficult time for race relations in our city and our country. mckinley tech had an almost entirely african-american student body. it was east of the park. i vividly remember days as a young boy sitting in the back of my mom's classroom as she taught american history to a class of african-american teenagers. her students were born before brown versus board of education or bowling versus sharp. my her example, my mom taught me the importance of

to me, justice kennedy is a mentor, a friend, and a hero.a member of the court, he was a model of civility and collegiality. he fiercely defended the independence of the judiciary, and he was a champion of liberty. if you had to sum up justice kennedy's entire career in one word, liberty. justice kennedy established a legacy of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. i'm here today with another of judicial heroes, my mom. 50 years ago this week in september 1968 my mom was 26 and i was three. at that time my mom started as a public school teacher at mckinley tech high school here in washington, d.c. 1968 was a difficult time for race relations in our city and our country. mckinley tech had an almost entirely african-american student body. it was east of the park. i vividly remember days as a young boy sitting in the back of my mom's classroom as she taught american history to a class of african-american teenagers. her students were born before brown versus board of education or bowling versus sharp. by her example my mom taught me the impor

justice kennedy showed us in the texas versus johnson case.sions based on who people are or their policy preferences or the moment. we base decisions on the law. justice kennedy's example of independence is something that i have tried to follow. and it means you are not a pro -- as i said yesterday, not a pro plaintiff, pro defense, pro prosecution or pro defense judge. i'm a pro law judge. that is part of being an independent judge is ruling for the party no matter who they are so long as the party is right. if you walk into my courtroom and you have the better legal afrgt arguments, you will win. >> i think you answered my next question based upon what you said about homdon, but there are probably other examples, you don't need to go into detail, but you have -- >> [ yelling ]. >> -- president bush a pointed you. are there other cases that -- there has been other cases presumably that you've ruled against the administration of the person that appointed you. >> absolutely, mr. chairman. there were a slew of cases on everything from freedom of

joint opinion of justice kennedy, justice o'connor ands justice souter at great length went through those factors. that was the question presented in the case. >> could i interrupt you to say, since you mentioned stare decisis and i sat on night at these hearings, and when the subject comes up, the person says i will follow stare decisis. and they get did confirm and tf course they s don't. so i think knowing going into it how you make a judgment on these issues is really important to our vote as whether to support you or not. because i don't want to go back to those death tolls in this country. and they truly believe that women should be able to control their own reproductive systems, within, obviously, some concern for a viable fetus. >> and iwi understand your point of view on that, senator, and understand how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue. i understand the importance of the issue. iee understand the importance tt people attach to the roe v. wade decision, to the planned parenthood v. casey decision. i i don't live in a bubble. i understand, i live in the real

they went to high school together and clerked for justice kennedy together and they're close. you have to wonder whether he is getting pointers how to wade through this. justice kagan possibly offering advice. the dean of harvard law school and hired judge kavanaugh to be an instructor there. he has a lot of connections to the court and knows how it works. he has been prepped one of the sleeper issues, he clerked for three different federal judges including alex kazinski. he had to step down in the wake of me too bubbled up from a number of women who worked for him describing inappropriate situations. the left will push judge kavanaugh on that. what did he know? did he speak up? they'll press him to that because of a hot button issue. as far as i can tell he indicated he never knew anything about what happened with the judge but it is a potential sleeper issue the left is hoping to score points with today. >> bret: we were told that one of the introducers senator rob portman worked on the mock questioning with judge kavanaugh. rob portman has done that job for vice presidential

that was justice kennedy joined by chief justice roberts.the statement for the supreme court summarizing in essence. but head that been the sole tests. they would not had reached the result that he did. the right to marry is clearly rooted. marriage is clearly deeply rooted. and -- interracial marriage was not. probably longus in virginia. in the supreme court struck an important blow in 1967. if the blacksburg test was a test applied. is it a right to marriage with regardless to gender.ar a couple things. i think they talk about the equality as well. there is it the quality principle. summarizing all of those decisions. they were all written by justice kennedy. were they all correctly ecided. none of those had answered questions about any of those cases is justice kagan's said no thumbs-up or thumbs down on those recent cases but what the court said is the most recent statement on the supreme court for a broad cross section. in a large number of justices on the supreme court. and i think i will leave it by referring you to that statement. a

thorough takedown of the individual mandate pick he would go on to clerk for the supreme court justice kennedy that year for the next year and they held or heard the challenge and according to him your opinion was a roadmap for the dissenting justices. the ones who struck down the affordable care act. you wrote the quote road map and could one conclude that you have voted to knock it down if you are on the supreme court? >> i concluded in one case that i of -- upheld the affordable care act. in the case you are not -- talking about i did not reap the benefits. my opinion has been described as a roadmap for both sides because i described both positions. it wasn't a roadmap at all because -- >> a takedown.>> i speak for myself and my own opinions speak for themselves.>> chairman wants to close the questioning. we can leave it with that.>> before i call on the senator, the minority has requested a third round of questions and that is perfectly legitimate it may make your day longer but we did the same thing and agreed to eight minute rounds. senator has given his additional eight minutes and she

>> it is. >> and precedent that justice kennedy joined. so it's settled law. it's established. it entitled to the same respect as other precedents including other precedents mentioned by senator >> it is an important precedent of the supreme court. it's been discussed by other justices over time. >> and nothing in glucksberg or other cases suggests that glucksberg is incompatible? it doesn't suggest that it cannot -- is somehow incompatible with other precedents? >> it cited casey. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman i have a letter that i'd like to offer. david lee, one of our nation's foremost legal scholars. >> without objection, so ordered. >> he served until about a month ago as the dean of duke law school. prior to that, the u.s. district judge in the eastern district of california. he shared some great personal information questions and gave advice to all the students there. and i offer that into the record. thank you mr. chairman. you've already admitted. i'm just thanking you for doing that. the contents of your phone, the question you received from senator whitehouse, on ca

a yes or no, please. >> in master piece cake shop, this is i think relevant to your question, justice kennedy wrote in the majority opinion joined by chief justice roberts and justice alito and justice go gorsuch and others are over. >> are over. >> do you agree with that statement? >> that is the precedent of the supreme court agreed with by -- >> sir, i'm asking your opinion. you're the nominee right now so it is probative of your ability to serve on the highest court in our land so i'm asking you a very specific question. either you're willing to answer or not and if you're not willing to answer it, we can move on. do you believe obergerfeld was correctly decided? >> each of the justices have declined as a matter of judicial independence, each of them to answer questions in that line of cases. >> so you will not answer it? >> following the precedent set by those eight justices, they've all declined when asked to thaens question. >> thank you. i have limited time. >> but it's important be -- >> i'd really like to move on. you've said that brown v board of education was one of the greatest m

>> it is. >> precedent that justice kennedy joined? > is entitled to the same respect as other precedents including other precedent mentioned by senator coons. >> it has been discussed for other justices over time. >> nothing in glucksberg or the other cases suggest that glucksberg is incompatible? it suggests that it cannot suggested it somehow incompatible with the other precedents. >> is cited casey. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i have a letter that i would like to offer. into the record for this assignment david leavy pier 1 donations for most legal scholars. s.>> without objection, so ordered. >> he served until about a month ago. as the dean of duke law school. prior to that he served as the u.s. district judge in the eastern district of california. he shared some great personal information in here about his interaction with judge kavanaugh. and about the fact that judge kavanaugh came to duke law school and as is becoming a theme in his hearing, describes a judge kavanaugh, who was a mentor to the students in competitions, answer

justice kennedy was in majority of those decisions.dge kavanaugh and the mainstream of american legal thought. >> i want to point your attention to one of those vindications. that's the 2001 heller decision that of course judge kavanaugh wrote the dissent for. he said those second amendment constitutional right that do includes semiautomatic weapons in that case. supreme court disregarded that ban on semis. i want to ask you as we move forward to 2018 and what data shows is uptick in mass gun shootings. do you believe working with judge kavanaugh if the facts supported it that balance all important balance against the constitution itself that the judge will be open to an evolution on those facts? >> it's a great question. heller was decided in 2008. then a follow-up case was decided by a d.c. circuit about whether or not semiautomatic rifles can be banned. the supreme court has not yet dressedress -- addressed that question. judge kavanaugh wrote a historically-based decision. the balancing you're talking about. it's precluded by the s

judge brett kavanaugh's nominated to replace retired justice anthony kennedy. today justice kennedy returned to the northern california roots with a warning. >> talking about the importance of civility and the -- and the decent civil discourse that's necessary if the constitution is to survive. >> justice kennedy spoke to students from a sacramento alma mater in sacramento county at the courthouse popular we were there we'll have a live report with more details for you coming up right here at 6:00 p.m. if you want to watch some of the clips of wrangling happening in that senate hearing room this morning, we have made it easy for you. we put it on the website. you can see everything from senator jeff flake's call for the investigation to the democrats getting up and walking out. all of that on the website, nbcbayarea.com. >>> an unusual and high tech homicide investigation in the south bay lead police to a 90-year-old suspect. anthony is accused of killing his 67-year-old step daughter at her home in the east san jose foot hls. she was found slumped over her kit

not one senator voted against justice kennedy for both you and justice gorsuch clerked for and how you will succeed on the court. not one senator voted against justice scalia's confirmation for you have called a role model and a hero. but that was before judges were viewed as policymakers, rather than fair. and neutral interpreters of the constitution drafted bys congress. today as i suggested it's a wonderful opportunity to re-examine the proper role for judges under our constitution and the difference between legislators and judges. as justice gorsuch wrote before joining the supreme court, a poll than forcing between legislators and judges was the great project of the late justice scalia's career. justice scalia would always remind us that legislators may appeal to their own moral convictions and to claims abouta social utility. but judges instead can strive to apply the law as it is looking to the text, structure and history. not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences. [shouting] >> soid this hearing is an outstanding way to remind theli ame

follow the second amendment opinion of the supreme court whether i agree or disagree that i cited justice kennedy which i read yesterday as a guiding light for all judges. >> i will give you a couple of other quotes. do you agree with justice o'connor a woman's right to control her reproductive life impacts her ability to quote participate equally in the economic and social life"? >> as a general proposition i understand the importance of the precedent set forth in grove v wade. that held of course and reaffirmed with planned parenthood versus casey woman has a constitutional right tonn obtain an abortion before viability subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point it constitutes an undue burden on the woman's right to obtain an abortion in one of the reasons for the holding as explained by the court in roe and also planned parenthood versus casey is along the lines of what you said senator about the quotation from justice l o'connor that is one of the rationale under roe v wade that undergirds -- undergirds planned parenthood versus casey. >> in the 1950s and six days, one -- 6

timmy, justice kennedy is a mentor, a friend, and a hero. as a member of the court, he was a model of civility and collegiality. he fiercely defended the independence of the judiciary. and he was a champion of libert liberty. if you had to sum up justice kennedy's entire career in one word, liberty. justice kennedy established a legacy of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. i am here today with another of my judicial heroes, my mom. 50 years ago this week in september of 1968, my mom was 26, and i was 3. at that time, my mom started as a public school teacher at mckinley tech high school here in washington, d.c. 1968 was a difficult time for race relations in our city and our country. mckinley tech had an almost entirely african-american student body. it was east of the park. i vividly remember days as a young boy, sitting in the back of my mom's classroom as she taught american history to a class of african-american teenagers. her students were born before brown versus education or bowling versus sharp. by her example, my mom taught th

four days of testimony in this hearing, judge kavanaugh would replace justice anthony kennedy. the committee was able to question judge kavanaugh for more than 20 hours over two days and today never heard from outside witnesses and legal experts. in off and you missed any of today's session, we will be showing it again tonight in its entirety at 8 pm eastern right here on c-span2. also watch all four days of testimony from the hearing, just type in the search box at c-span.org. we will take a look back at these testimonyfrom yesterday . . >>. >> tell me when you're ready, judge . >> senator flake. >> thank you. judge kavanaugh, if it's fourth-quarter and you are down by one point, which played you call and which of the young ladies in the front row do you pass the ball to? >> i can't choose, they are all great players as you know senator. it's great to have them all orhere . >> do you want to let us know who they all are? >> these are a variety of teams that i coached. istarted coaching many years rs ago and some of these girls are as old as 10th grade now . i started coaching

it would not fly with justice kennedy.lty seeing how this counts against you. as a someone who believes in civil liberties. i think the advice you offer here, i think it was accurate, i think it was good advice. it certainly is not inconsistent with the statement you provided, which was that you were not involved in the development of the problem stomach policy. sometimes of lawyers, we are called upon to handle litigation policy. we may be called upon to develop policy. here you were involved in either handling the litigation directly or in developing the policy. he went to a meeting, you gave them your answer. >> that is correct. it was something entirely separate. >> separate and distinct. dull sort of in the same universe, but not without polic policy. i therefore have great difficulty in saying that you did anything but the right thing. anything other than the whole truth and nothing but the truth. colleagues with whom i often agree, and with thy often work with across the aisle. senator booker is a good friend. he an

justice kennedy for the last 30 years had had judge kazinski run justice kennedy's hiring process. in the course of that process, i would have communications with the judge. >> okay. did you know anything about these allegations? >> nothing. >> okay. >> before they became public last year? >> no, when they became public, you know the first thought i had was no woman should be subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace, ever. including on the just dish area, especially in the judiciary, and when i heard, when it became public, i think it was in december. it was a gut punch, it was a gut punch for me. >> it was for me, too. >> that was gut punch for the judiciary and i was shocked and disappointed, angry a swirl of emotions. no woman should be subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace. i applaud chief justice roberts appointed a committee of judges to establish better procedures. chief judge garland did the same thing for our court. those are first steps. i don't think they're final steps by any stretch. this is a part of a much larger national problem of abuse and harassm

[protesting] show my commitment to independence of the judiciary the crown jewel justice kennedy for whom i worked in with the adherence of law in the united states off america to come out with federalist 69 in the right in the. structure with united states of america and the deep faith of the judiciary and ended with that in my opening of the supreme court the last line of defenses the rights rights and liberties team by the constitutional laws of the united states. >> that is why unitary authority is worrisome because what you have said is what i hear from the political and important branch of government that the president has the last word you have not said that i will reiterate somethingge that when a court order requiring the president or prohibits a president from doing something in the constitution that is the final word mac i will have one last time a question about your testimony 2006i am just struggling with the fact with the issue of interrogation and torture a declarative answer to me tuesday i was not all in the question about the rules governing tension that we have aff

from my time clerking for justice kennedy, my experience there, seeing how it works. in basic terms, what i do is i read the briefs very carefully. i have my clerks prepare binders. many, many binders of all the cases i need to read, of all -- i like to know the law review articles and treatises on point. i like to go back and see if there are any historical materials that might be, and they're all in the binders. then i'll talk about it with the clerks. i'll have one clerk who's handling it but sometimes talk about it with all the clerks, about my tentative views. the judges, interestingly, do not talk about the case ahead of time with each other. the reason for that is we each want to come into the oral argument having formed our own tentative approaches and questions and not having been influenced by maybe, well, this is what the other judge thinks, and so that will subtly influence you. but if we come into the oral argument with three independent perspectives, the practice has been that'll help us reach a more informed decision. each of us will be prepared. then a

from my time clerking for justice kennedy, my experience there, seeing how it works. in basic terms, what i do is i read the briefs very carefully. i have my clerks prepare binders. many, many binders of all the cases i need to read, of all -- i like to know the law review articles and treatises on point. i like to go back and see if there are any historical materials that might be, and they're all in the binders. then i'll talk about it with the clerks. i'll have one clerk who's handling it but sometimes talk about it with all the clerks, about my tentative views. the judges, interestingly, do not talk about the case ahead of time with each other. the reason for that is we each want to come into the oral argument having formed our own tentative approaches and questions and not having been influenced by maybe, well, this is what the other judge thinks, and so that will subtly influence you. but if we come into the oral argument with three independent perspectives, the practice has been that'll help us reach a more informed decision. each of us will be prepared. then a

after law school, he clerked for justice anthony kennedy, the justice he would succeed. he spent 12 years on the nation's most prestigious court of appeals. united states court of appeals for the district of colombia circuit. his opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair and many are known as instant classics. not just because they are important, but because they are written so clearly and well. the supreme court has adopted the reasoning and his opinions more than a dozen times. judge kavanaugh's judicial temperment is also flawless. he has meticulously prepared and treats litigants with respect asking probing questions of both sides. he approaches judging by determining what the law requires no matter his personal preference. judge kavanaugh taught at the nation's top law schools, published thoughtful law review articles and has set judicial precedent and just mentioned the aba strongly endorsed him because "he meets the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperment." on a personal level, i just can't say enough nice things abou

the factors of stare decisis in considering whether to overrule it and in a joint opinion of justice kennedy, justice o'connor and justice souter, at great length went through those factors. that was the question presented in the case. >> could i interrupt you to say since you mentioned stare decisis? i sat on nine of these hearings. and when the subject comes up, the person says i will follow stare decisis and they get confirmed and then of course, they don't. so i think knowing going into it, how you make a judgment on these issues is really important to our vote as to whether to support you or not. because i don't want to go back to those death tolls in this country. and i truly believe that women should be able to control their own reproductive systems. within obviously some concern for a viable fetus. >> i understand your point of view on that, senator. and i understand how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue. i understand the importance of the issue. i understand the importance that people attach to the roe v. wade decision. to the planned parenthood versus casey dec

to me, justice kennedy is a mentor, friend, and a hero.ended the independence of the judiciary and was a champion of liberty. if you had to sum up justice kennedy's entire career in one word, liberty. a legacy ofed liberty for ourselves and posterity. i'm here today with another of my heroes. my mom. this week, in september 1968, my mom was 26 and i was three. at that time, my mom started as a public school teacher at mckinley tech high school in washington dc. mckinley tech had an almost entirely african-american -- student body. i remember sitting in the back of my mom's classroom as she taught american history to a class of african-american teenagers. her students were born before brown versus board of education or others. mom taught me, my the importance of equality for all americans. equal rights, equal dignity, and equal justice under law. my mom was a chair laser -- trail blazer. when i was 10 she became a prosecutor. i am an only child in my introduction to law came at our dinner table when she practiced her closing arguments on my

confirmation hearings begin today for president trump's pick to fill justice anthony kennedy seat as the supreme court swing vote. if judge brett kavanaugh is confirmed, it would create a block of five justices that would likely make the supreme court the most conservative since the 1930's. itics warnrn his confirmation could d lead to age or rollbackf civil rights, environmental regulations, gun-control measurures, voting rigight and reproductive righthts, including possibly overturning roe v. wade. just hours before the hearings were set to begin, a lawyer for former president george w. bush released more than 40,000 pages of documents from his time in the white house counsel's office. to 2003. he was also staff secretary from 2003 to 2006. yet the trump administration is withholding more than 100,000 records kavanaugh's under the basasis of presesidenl privivilege.e. we will have more after the headlines.s. presesident trtrump has attacked attorney general jeff sessions again after the justice department filed charges against republican congress members christopher collins of new y

point, some stats on recent confirmation hearings and votes for the last two justices, antonin scalia a and anthony kennedy anthony greater the current vacancy unanimously. who werefour justices confirmed receipt somewhere between 54 and 68 votes over the course of their confirmation hearings. jason on bipartisanship in these votes. caller: -- correct,e caller is ginsburg was confirmed in 1963, something along those lines. one of the fascinating parts of that the documentary about her was hearing orrin hatch speaking so glowingly about her in the judiciary committee confirmation hearings. there is a real lack of bipartisanship in terms of the way we are going through the last two confirmations. and i think this has been building for a while. i do not want to overstate the merrick garland factor. he does hangover these proceedings. it was relatively unprecedented for a majority leader not to hold the confirmation hearing for supreme court nominee, when you look at the way the court has waxed and waned between a more liberal or conservative dominated structure, it's usually because presidents get their nomin

it's an opinion of justice kennedy for whom brett kavanaugh clark and there were about 40 different factors in the dissent i chief justice roberts were identified as possible limiting considerations. in that case, but you're absolutely right. >> the standard was disproportionate influence in putting the judge into that seat, correct? >> it did involve a huge financial contribution by a private person in a case that was already pending about when the person was running for the state supreme court. a pending case. a huge financial contribution to a private individual. >> in this case, you have a pending criminal investigation and you have somebody who's done a good deal more than put $3 million towards getting that judge in the seat. he is actually 100 percent that judge in the seat, do you not see that there's any potential relevance between the caperton decision and the decision that judge kavanaugh would face if confirmed? >> i think mister chair, so it's not 100 percent that's what this body is about. the presidents don't put people on the supreme court and if you have any concern whatsoe

it's an opinion of justice kennedy for whom brett kavanaugh clark and there were about 40 different factors in the dissent i chief justice roberts were identified as possible limiting considerations. in that case, but you're absolutely right. >> the standard was disproportionate influence in putting the judge into that seat, correct? >> it did involve a huge financial contribution by a private person in a case that was already pending about when the person was running for the state supreme court. a pending case. a huge financial contribution to a private individual. >> in this case, you have a pending criminal investigation and you have somebody who's done a good deal more than put $3 million towards getting that judge in the seat. he is actually 100 percent that judge in the seat, do you not see that there's any potential relevance between the caperton decision and the decision that judge kavanaugh would face if confirmed? >> i think mister chair, so it's not 100 percent that's what this body is about. the presidents don't put people on the supreme court and if you have any concern whatsoe

olson was rightly decided, an opinion that justices kennedy, ginsburg, roberts and alito, were those corrected decided in. >> i said that in response to senator harris whether i agreed with justice alito and chief justice i think i said yes. >> that they were correctly decided? >> i agreed with justice alito and chief justice roberts. >> can i take a moment and explore independent counsel statute is unconstitutional because you have written about that in 1998, 199, law journal articles and public speeches as i pointedly raised in 2016 you called the independent statute called a travesty. >> that's what senator durbin in essence called it. >> what i'm concerned is what you said -- >> that's what the entire congress -- the entire congress had basically taken that view in 1999, that it was unrestrained, unaccountable, disaster. >> let's say it was widely planned but you chose to call it out as constitutional travesty and you're the nominee for the supreme court in front of me. give me a moment, while you worked for ken star as independent counsel under the independent counsel statute you

at the end of the opinion, i cited justice kennedy's quote which i read guiding light for the lower court judges and all judges. >> let me give you a couple other quotes because i'm going to change the subject. do you agree with justice o'connor that a woman's right to control her reproductive life impacts her ability to, quote, participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation, end quote? >> well, as a general proposition, i understand the importance of the precedent set forth in roe v. wade. so roe v. wade held and reaffirmed in planned parenthood versus casey that a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion before viability subject to reasonable regulation by the state up to the point where that regulation constitutes an undue burden on the woman's right to obtain an abortion. and one of the reasons for that holding as explained by the court in roe and also in planned parenthood versus casey more fully is along the lines of what you said, senator feinstein, about the quote from justice o'connor. so that is one of tfof the ratis that undergirds roe v. wade.

not one senator voted against justice kennedy who both you and justice gorsuch clerked for and who you will succeed on the court, not one senator voted against justice scalia's confirmation who you have called a role model and a hero, but that was before judges were viewed as policy makers rather than fair and neutral interpreters of the constitution and the laws drafted by congress. today as i suggested is a wonderful opportunity to reexamine the proper role for judges under our constitution and the difference between legislators and judges. as justice gorsuch wrote before he joined the supreme court, upholding and enforcing this distinction between legislators and judges was the great project of the late justice scalia's career. justice scalia would also remind us that legislators may appeal to their own moral convictions and claims about social utility, but judges instead should strive to apply the law as it is, looking to the text, structure and history, not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences. so this hearing is an outstanding way to rem

. >> i'm sure i have and that's what justice kennedy talked about in texas versus johnson. that case, in case didn't know i referred to, the flag burning case. and justice kennedy is in the majority with justice scalia, brannen and justice marshall and says that a law against flag burning is unconstitutional under the first amendment and that tore justice kennedy, really bothered him because he's such a patriot but still ruled the way he did, because he read the first amendment to compel that result and that's why he wrote that great concurrence in that case and that concurrence is such a great model for judging, a great model of independence and a great model to your point, senator graham of, we follow the law, but we're aware, we're aware, and a better judge if you're aware. >> well, i just want to say this to my colleagues. everything he said i think has been verified by the people who know him the best. i can't say i've read 307 of your opinions. i can tell you without hesitation i have not. i did not read sotomayor's opinions or kagan's writings but what i chose to do

that's why i think justice kennedy's comment really does resonate with me and point out something.in that particular case, that is the most important case they will ever have. and it is important. and i treated as the most important case for me at that moment in time while i am deciding. >> can you talk briefly a little bit about the process that you have undergone in the appellate court. it would be a little bit different at this level. when a case comes before you, sit down with your clerks, i'm sure. assign research to them. how do they frequently work with the other clerks? compare notes, do you do that with the other judges? how does that work and how might it be different with the job that you are pulling for? >> i think there are a lot of similarities to the supreme court in terms of the process. for my time, my experience there, seeing how it works ther there. in basic terms, what i do is i read the briefs very carefully. i have my clerks prepare binders, many, many binders of all the cases i need to read. at the larger articles and treatises. i go back and see if there are