comparable letters to what was sent for elena kagan's documents and what was produced in elena kagan's confirmation. in the bipartisan request to kagan, all documents kagan orte, edited or prepared under her supervision were askef d for. not this time. kagan was asked for documents she created that are in other people's files. she was asked for documents that referenced her. not this time. those requests were not made to brett kavanaugh. as has been discussed by senator schumer and kristine, during the kagan nomination, nonpartisan national archives staff provided documents. this time president bush's former lawyers are trying to take the lead. does anyone doubt the documents are being thoroughly prescreened? in march, chairman chuck grassley said "i have learned over the years that transparency doesn't come easy. it requires constant oversight and pressure from the public, the press, and congress." we agree with chuck grassley. this is a lifetime appointment that will alter our democracy, rule of law, rights, and legal protections for every single american. it is time to release all t

>> kagan: so he was castrated. >> stahl: was castrated. >> kagan: right.ay with the group. and he's perfectly healthy and happy, just like people's dogs and cats that, you know, are spayed and neutered. is it ideal? no. >> stahl: back in copenhagen, there are now two young giraffes-- a half-sister and brother to marius. we couldn't help but wonder about their future. is it possible that one or both will have to be culled? >> holst: for the male, it may be an option, yes. >> stahl: marius ii. >> holst: could be, yes. we still have 15 months to look for a place for him. but if necessary, we will do it, yes. >> are zookeepers playing god? a conversation with lesley stahl at 60minutesovertime.com. ♪ a wealth of information. a wealth of perspective. ♪ a wealth of opportunities. that's the clarity you get from fidelity wealth management. straightforward advice, tailored recommendations, tax-efficient investing strategies, and a dedicated advisor to help you grow and protect your wealth. fidelity wealth management. with pink power! the powerful acne fighter from

we want the same formula that was used for justice kagan. we want to look and see what his knowledge is on key issues and also what he thinks. these are issues like the cia torture program. i was chairman of the intelligence committee for the the 7000 page report on torture. senator durbin and senator leahy have asked questions. they deserve an answer. torepublicans don't want review these documents, they don't have to, but it is wrong to stand in the way of senators who want to review the full record. i have served beyond 10 nominations. eight of them made it to the court. biggest thing that the judiciary committee actually it isuring its tenure, the examination of a president's nominee to the highest court of of thed, the defender constitution of the united states. i think we are entitled to know what that person believes, what he has written, what he has said , particularly in any form or capacity. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here. unlike diane i have only been here for seven nominees to the supreme court. but i noticed somethi

but we didn't have judicial opinions to review for justice kagan. for justice kagan we needed materials to understand her legal physiological if i and style of reasoning and we'd to use what actually existed at the time. i would say that the solicitor general files -- she represented -- she was solicitor general of the united states and represented the u.s. government in front of the supreme court. virtually none of that was touched. we recognized that it should be -- that those communications, attorney-client communications, should be respected. but, second, for justice kagan's confirmation, republicans and democrats alike agreed that not every single executive branch document was relevant and important to her confirmation process. so in that respect, i would tell my friend, the minority leader, that's not a double standard. that's the same standard -- should be the same standard. republicans and democrats got together in the case of justice kagan and agreed that records from her time at the solicitor general's office were too sensitive and privile

you've got breyer and kagan who are the more pragmatic and breyer wrote the dissent that kagan joined that talked about, well, the majority relies on this exemption and waiver provision, but we're not sure how effective -- whether that's actually an option for people who are trying to come to the united states. and it was the sotomayor/ginsburg dissent that that really was strong talking about this is a muslim ban. >> the travel ban argument was actually my favorite moment where chief justice breyer, when an advocate gets too many questions, tries to give a little extra time. so chief justice breyer did -- >> [inaudible] >> i just stated -- chief justice roberts tries to give extra time to an advocate who's gotten -- >> is so the s.g. gets extra time, and neal katyal gets up and gives a really good argument. just as your red light is going to come on, you come to your closing statement and land it like you're a figure skater, and he does it. and then the chief justice says, you can have five more minutes. [laughter] >> i'd forgotten that. >> so scotusblog compiles a fabulous, they cal

but kagan represented or both. had garland, not gorsuch been on the court, there would have been five votes. >> what bob said was right. on monday, isght not necessarily right on friday. >> i think bob was correct to say that they passed on the case because of standing grounds. there was still a good argument for how to go forward on partisan gerrymandering in the next case. that was not going to happen. the chop appointees is not going to be a fifth vote to strike down parson gerrymandering. >> i think we will be hearing a lot in the next couple of years, roe v. wade to give you an example. note, which means a lot to us and maybe not to the general public, you look at she went hard on that issue, why are we overturning president, why would we do that? it is interesting because in the travel ban case, justice sotomayor brought up core korematsu. and the chief said that was not fair. and he overruled it. like kagan i felt was talking to the chief in the uppercase, and then you have the tension between sotomayor and

justice kagan's opinion is how the liberals would pitch it. -- what cavanaugh is about that. with that. opinion, i think the court didn't want to -- it was a dignitary he was seen for so long. this is such a hard case number regardless of where -- this is a hard case, regardless of where you sit. it is quite difficult. i think that's why the opinion itself is pretty narrow. there will be skirmishing about what it means. at the end of the day, i think it means it lives to another day to be decided. i thought about when this decision came out, a lot of people say this is certain things for the travel ban case. i never gave that much credence. i never gave that much credence. there was skirmish in in the opinions in the travel ban case, when justice mayor quoted page after page of masterpiece to say you said we would scrutinize religious discrimination, why aren't you doing to hear -- doing it here? >> the supreme court took up a case, one of its long-standing precedents, an important first amendment case. it could have long-term political ramifications, in the janus case. >> th

when democrats do it, they talk about politics. >> shannon: justice kagan has spoken to this. she's quoted as saying that's an unfortunate thing because it makes the world think we are sort of junior varsity politicians. i think that's not the way we think of ourselves. even given the fact that we disagree and that we disagree in ways you can predict based on what kind of a president appointed us." jessica, it seems like we are long past the days when we think about justice kennedy, soon to retire, that he was approved 97 or 98 to 0. no opposition. now there seems to be such a partisan vote and the court turned into something i don't think the founders intended. >> absolutely not. i had the pleasure of hearing ruth bader ginsburg speak and she made a similar point. obviously everyone ends up owning a certain way, we have swing voters. the court is supposed to be a place where you come together to honor the constitution however you interpret it. that's in different ways depending on i guess where you fall. that's the goal and we know how close ruth bader ginsburg was with justi

justice kagan, former administrative law professor. you see her opinion joined by the five more conservative justices, which is an unusual lineup. you don't see justice kagan splintering from the other justices on the left side of the court very often. justice breyer has a middleground position and the dissent is written by justice sotomayor and assigned by justice ginsburg. justice kagan is continuing on a theme of precedent, managed to write this in as precedenty way as is possible to write. basically the supreme court had an official of the tax court, judge, inpecial trial 1991. the special trial judge has his or her decisions reviewed by real tax court judges. the opinion of the court in this case basically compares the alj to be special tax court judge, special trial judge, and says in every relevant respect they exercise authority as significant as or more significant than the special trial judge. therefore under that earlier case, this appointment is invalid as well. or that these people are officers as well. justice breyer does

democratic leaders now say they want to follow the so-called kagan rule or the kagan standard. but seem to forget how we approached that nomination. republicans and democrats alike agreed to forego a request for her solicitor general document because of their sensitivity. senators leahy and sessions because they were the ranking republican and chairman at the time came to that agreement, even though justice kagan had no judicial record to review. and they agreed to these terms despite justice kagan's own statement that her tenure in the solicitor general's office would provide insight into the kind of justice she would be. obviously, with his long record on the d.c. circuit, judge kavanaugh doesn't have this problem. there's plenty of paper for people to observe the kind of person you could expect him to be on the supreme court. the need for confidentiality is substantially higher for documents passing through the staff secretary's office than the solicitor general's office. under the precedent set by justice kagan, we shouldn't expect access to staff secretary records. we alre

and justice kagan's opinion is how the liberals will pitch it. and so we'll find out what kavanaugh thinks about that. >> i agree basically with that. so i think it's a narrow opinion. the court didn't really -- it's not just marriage equality, but the dignitary of the justice kennedy has recognized this for so long and freedom of religion. this is such a hard case regardless of where you sit in terms of who nominated you or whatever. this is really, really difficult case. and that's why the opinion itself is pretty for a -- there will be some squirmish, but at the end of the day, i believe it lives for another day to be decided. when the decision came down, a lot of people said it portends a lot for the travel ban case. and i never gave that much credence. there was skirmish in the opinions in the travel ban case with justice sotomayor and the pages in her dissent in page after page of masterpiece to say, you said we're going to strictly scrutinize religious discrimination. in that case, why aren't you doing it here? at the end of the day, it fe

kagan: it's not that we agree with you. [laughter] sus. cote: so i can say a few things to what justice ginsburg said. i would observe that king arthur must shoulder part of the blame for the events that occurred. why did he not listen to his who warnede insiders him about mordred's motivations? and why did he declined to appoint a special counsel to investigate? and why did he maintain close ties with foreign adversaries? and at the end, i really don't like lancelot. [laughter] [applause] sus. cote: if i would have been the queen, i would have stayed with king arthur. [laughter] jus. kagan: i'm finding a concurrence in the judgment. i have no feelings about lancelot. [laughter] jus. kagan: nor about arthur. i was searching for a very narrow ground. and that narrow ground is simply that the case was not proved against mordred. jus. ginsburg: that is a scotch verdict. [laughter] judge millett: well i, i dissent. i am joined by justice breyer. my decision is grounded in being sick and tired of double standards under the law between men and w

the four justices who concurred, led by justice kagan. justice kagan authors the opinion, made very clear their sympathy for making partisan gerrymandering claims judiciable . justice kagan insisted that on remand, the plaintiffs need not show their individual harm, that there could be a first amendment associational claim that could support it going forward. her opinion is notable in two respects. first, the extraordinary number of cites to justice kennedy, who had offered an opinion in 2004 maybe -- saying this is maybe a judiciable claim, but we need a manageable standard and the concurring justices believed that manageable standard has emerged. and the second thing i think is notable is the extent to which there was urgency in justice kagan's opinion, decrying the effect on american democracy of partisan gerrymandering, beyond the strength of one party versus another, the way in which it tends to create polarization and other kinds of harms. there was also a statutory voting rights case in the court used that versus hillebrand of inst

>> supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg, stephen breyer and elena kagan took part in a the trial titled insurrection of camelot. other participants include the u.s. solicitor general noah francisco and the canadian supreme court justice suzanne coat. this is an hour. >> in a kingdom not so far away and long time ago, king arthur and queen guenevere have created a near utopian society.

justice kagan and justice breyer were confirmed in the near election years. in addition to many justices who served before them. democratic leadership and outside groups are so desperate to block the 70 that they are willing to rewrite history to do it. we have a long history of confirming justices nominated during a midterm election year. we do not have a long history of conferring judges nominated during a presidential election year. it's been nearly 80 years since we've done that. former chairman joe biden announced in 1992 that the senate should not confirm any justices during a presidential election year and senator schumer said something similar in 2007, the year before the presidential presidential election. biden, schumer role pertains only to presidential elections not the midterm election years. it is important to let the american people decide who should choose the nominee or a supreme court vacancy. that is why i waited until after the 2016 presidential election to hearings for supreme court nominee. the individual selects nominees, the president

there were four dissenters, justice kagan wrote an impassioned defense that she read from the bench. and suggested that it raises the specter of the first amendment being used as a sword to attack programs exactly as some of the prior commenters have noted. this was widely anticipated decision and has been criticized quite a bit by the court in recent years. i think it would be disingenuous to say that people were surprised by the decision. two things stand out to me from the decision .1 is that there was a lot of attention in the opinion that alito wrote, stare decisis. the ability to reverse president overturn precedent. one thing that is missing from this discussion of ádecisive is any citation to the casey opinion from 1992. the most prominent and high- profile discussion of starting sizes is possible, the absence of that is justice alito bodes ill for supporters of abortion rights. the second thing that is quite notable comes at the very end of the opinion in part seven of the penultimate paragraph. justice alito says that as a result of invalidating these programs, employees of

two nominations, kagan and kavanaugh, are hardly comparable. at the time of her nomination, justice kagan had no judicial record to speak of whatsoever. having never served as a judge at any level. she had no written opinions. there was almost nothing we could use to assess her judicial philosophy. the white house record was among the very limited information we had to gauge her fitness to serve. so, of course, we asked to see it. by contrast judge kavanaugh has 12 years of experience on the circuit court of appeals for the district of columbia, the second highest court in this country. and he has -- that's not even to mention over 300 opinions. again, thousands of pages have been written clearly outlining judge kavanaugh's views on the constitution. if judge kavanaugh's extensive record is not enough to paint a clear picture of his judicial philosophy, then what is? what more do democrats need to know that this is a man who is eminently qualified to serve on our nation's highest court? i can only think of one reason why a senator would need ev

same standard support of republicans when they ask for a large amount of paper trail from the elena kagan. this could affect america for a generation and we want to see all of the documentation before we go to. so we are asking that the same expensive but necessary production of documents that we afforded the republicans when elena kagan was the nominee can be done here. we are not trying to delay, we just think it's important. someone is trying to delay but it's not me. we are not trying to delay we just think it's important to have these the sooner the better. >> the procedural ways that are available to us in the minority are not that large there is no way that we can prevent the senate from meeting. there's been some discussion about that but it just wouldn't happen i and if it did they coud unanimously consent to all kinds of things we never want to see them without a democrat on the floor to block it. and as for the committee, we believe we should be there and ask tough questions of the nominee. if we didn't show up, grassley y in the past and others in the past have just said okay

state's supreme court, ruth beta ginsburg, bader kagan -- ruther andberg, elena kagan, member from the supreme court of canada. please enjoy the trial. >> all rise! oh ye, the supreme court of the kingdom of camelot is now in session. [applause] ]raucous cheering ruth bader ginsburg: every body, please be seated. >> madam chief justice. it please the court, as you know, the perfect weather is decreed by law, but no doubt, things have become a bit "stormy." cheering] yes, there has been in insurrection and the kingdom is but the prosecution of my client has been nothing but a "witch hunt." the conviction rests on three things, his enthusiastic and the possibly politically motivated investigation of treason, the expression of political ideas, and associations with knights who have a habit of stupidly whacking each other. advocates a forcible overthrow the government. to comply with the first amendment, the kingdom has to prove that mordred had a specific intent to overthrow and engage in speech with a clear and present danger of bringing about substantial public evil and there is no evid

justice kagan and guillen whitford said are you associational freedoms. justice thomas and murphy said let's redo severability doctrine when someone brings a case to us. justice kennedy said let's reconsider chevron, so this doesn't strike me as a sign of a so-called minimalist courts. >> i think we are done. thank you so much for your patience and looking to us and thank you to our panel. [applause]. >> don't go anywhere. again, please, join me in giving this panel a incredible recognition and applause for this wonderful job. thank you. [applause]. stinnett tonight on the committee caters, stanford professor jeremy valence and discusses his book about virtual reality technology and its potential for the future. >> when vr is done well the front of your brain can say this is not real, but the back of your brain in charge of keeping you alive is terrified of whenever we bring whether it's children on a school field trip or the ceo of a fortune 10 company that is the first thing we do. we went to establish that the art field is a real sci-fi show you its re

madam president, what's good enough for justice kagan is good enough for judge kavanaugh. you could simply replace her name with judge kavanaugh's name throughout this letter, and the letter would be exactly applicable today. this is the standard democrats and republicans used to agree on, the kagan standard, and it wasn't just senators leahy and sessions. at the time, senator grassley said, quote, this is senator grassley, now chairman. the burden is on him to help us get a bipartisan letter. here's what grassley said. quote -- in order for the senate to fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent, we must get all of elena kagan's documents from the clinton library and have enough time to analyze them so we can determine whether she should be a justice. let me read it again. this is what chairman grassley said. this is chairman grassley, now chairman, then member of the judiciary committee. in order for the senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent, we must get all of her documents from the clinton library and have enough time to

he's also taught at law schools like harvard where he was actually hired by now-justice elena kagan, who he would serve alongside, as well as teaching at georgetown and yale. and we know during the years he has been on the appellate bench, he's handed down hundreds of decisions. and let's not forget that in order to obtain that important position, the senate already confirmed him once in 2006 by a vote of 57-36. we all know this is president trump's second nomination to the supreme court after that of justice neil gorsuch just last year. justice gorsuch in his first term on the court has already demonstrated the power of his pen, the clarity of his thought, and the force of his legal reasoning, and i'm sure that justice scalia would be proud of his successor's impartiality and his rigor and his self-discipline. but based on his distinguished record, i think judge kavanaugh will display many of the same attributes that justice gorsuch has displayed on the supreme court. in coming weeks, we will hear a lot about judge kavanaugh's interesting life story, about his long career as a dedic

name where elena kagan's name appeared. and note -- well, you probably can't see it, but the letter request is signed by then-chair of the judiciary committee patrick leahy, and it was signed by the ranking member, our current attorney general, ranking member at that time jeff sessions. a may 18, 2010, just -- on may 18, 2010, just eight days after her nomination to the supreme court by president obama, the judiciary committee sent a bipartisan request to the director of the clinton presidential library asking for records from her time working at the white house and records related to her nomination to the d.c. circuit. we should send a similar request for judge kavanaugh. just, as i said, substituting brett kavanaugh's name for elena kagan's. however, the chairman of the judiciary committee, our colleague from iowa, is refusing to work with us to request the totality of judge kavanaugh's record. i have heard objection to the requests for all the records rest on the volume of documents we might receive. the fact that there

and i remain grateful to the dean who hired me, justice elena kagan. as a judge, i.e.igher for law clerks each year. i look for the best. my law clerks from diverse backgrounds. i am proud that a majority of my law clerks have been women. i am part of the vibrant catholic community in the d.c. area. the members of that community disagree about things but we are united by a commitment to serve. father john and slayer is here, in 40 years ago i was an altar boy for father john. these days i help him serve meals to the homeless at catholic charities. i have two spirited counters, margaret and liza. margaret loves sports, and she loves to read. liza loves sports, and she loves to talk. [laughter] [laughter] tries for the past seven years, i have coached my daughter's basketball teams. the girls on the team team call me coach k. i am proud of our blessed sacrament team that just won the city championship. [applause] my daughters and i also go to lots of games. our favorite memory was going to the historic notre dame-uconn women's basketball game at this year's final four un

believes we can work our way through the process in a normal length of time that we did on gorsuch, kagan and others and have this nominee in place some time this fall. >> people must be wondering what in the world is going on where senate democrats are opposing a nominee yet to be named. we saw this with judge gorsuch as well. democrats, given the current state of their politics, are unwilling to defy their base and vote for well-qualified nominees so they find it a safer, political position for them to take to say they will oppose all nominees by president trump. but i agree with the leader that judge kavanaugh is an extraordinarily well-qualified judge. the reason why i think the left is so afraid of this nomination is they view the judiciary as a policy-making arm of the federal government. we disagree and we're in good company with people like james madison and alexander hamilton, and the founders, who viewed the judiciary as what they called the least dangerous branch because they aren't the policy-making arm of the government. it's congress and the executive branch. that's where po

asking the same expansive but necessary production of documents that we afforded the republicans and kagan was the nominee, be done here with kavanaugh as the nominee. >> is that in terms of the time. >> the sooner the better. were not trying to delay, we just think it's important. someone is trying to delay, but it is not me. we just think it is important to have these, the sooner the better. >> how far could you take this? is there a point where democrats might boycott the hearing altogether? >> look, the procedural ways that are available to us in the minority are not that large. there is no way that we can prevent the senate from meeting. there has been some discussion about that but it would not happen. if we did they could unanimously consent all kinds of things you would not want it to see. as for the committee, we believe we should be there and asked very tough questions of the nominee. if we did not show up, grassley and other chairs have just said, we are going to vote without them there. >> in the end, this is about getting the republicans to look at this. we know we have a numb

and justice kagan's opinion is how the liberals will pitch it. and so we'll find out what -- if it's kavanaugh whether -- you know, what he thinks about that. >> yeah, i agree with that. so i think it's a narrow opinion. the court i think didn't -- it's not just marriage equality but i think the dignitary interests that justice kennedy has -- how it clashes with freedom of religion. this is a hard case regardless of where you sit. in terms of who nominated you or whatever. this >>> your invitation which the court rescheduled 8 times. i think looking to see if they might have a new justice on the court who would break the tie but at the end they just dismissed and that's the end of that. fast forward to janice versus ask me. so we had to wonder where his views were. it came down to the very last day of the term. this is an overtime for supreme court because they wrap things up by the last monday of june and this went to wednesday which the court hasn't done since i think 2012. so this is really heart fault to the bitter end. this is exactly the wa

shannon: what i am hearing, alana kagan had no trail from the bench, she was never a judge.re was little to go through. she was a solicitor general under the obama administration so there was a bit of a trail. you have to turn over whatever is relevant but a bigger document pool, 1 million pages on brett kavanaugh. and it is a delay tactic. >> brett kavanaugh has a long history, that is what matters, not his personal opinion but long history of judicial opinions and what is interesting, same democrats requesting these documents are the same democrats in some cases refusing to meet with brett kavanaugh. if you're getting to know this nominee, sit down and have a face-to-face. i have a lot of respect for justice kagan, talking about the politicization of the nomination process, you see liberal law professors praising brett kavanaugh. you see this disconnect between the academic left praising this nominee in the political left with their scare tactics, democrats like nancy pelosi and others. shannon: thank you for weighing in. will the tough talk get us pastor andrew brunson ho

actually some precedent that.enator grassley to do john roberts worked in the white house, elena kagan worked in the white house. and they made -- they released including r records e-mails. so there is direct precedent notion that these records need to be made vailable and carefully reviewed. and we would expect chairman obey that precedent. i think it is also important a supreme court critically s so important that the american and e ought to understand understand well who it is who is considered for that particular role. is efore, i think it incumbent on the republican party to make all of this accessible, people ample give it.e to review and digest siobhan: there is so much paperwork. senate kly could the judiciary committee get to a hearing. nan: it is interesting you say because i just read that rob rosenstein is hiring or assistant u.s. attorneys to help review all of those records. what the timing will be. is really say is it the responsibility of the senate committee chair to be fair and open and make that available in time so an opportunity to review it. ark: even before any o

he was at harvard law school where he was appointed by then dean and now justice, elena kagan. after graduating he built a reputation as a stall law clerk including with it justice kennedy is a public servant he is one of the preeminent legal minds of his generation. in 2006 he was confirmed to the d.c. circuit. he has an extensive record and has published more than 300 opinions wears clear writing and reasoning. judge kavanaugh has built a long and distinguished record. he paints a clear picture of how he would conduct himself as a member of the nation's highest court. it's a firm understanding that judges interpret laws as they are written. we do not choose them to make policy. some of our colic see the role of judges differently. president obama summed up this ultimately well when he was running for president. he explained that he sought to appoint judges who harbor particular empathy for certain parties in certain cases. that's great if you happen to be the party in the case with whom the judge likes. not so great if you are the other guy. we have it doesn't allow for the r

were in the minority, chairman leahy joined with republicans to request all of elena kagan's records from her time in the white house. now the shoe is on the other foot, we're in the minority, they are in the majority. but rather than applying the previous bipartisan standard, the republican majority is refusing to join with democrats in requesting brett kavanaugh's complete record. at issue is brett kavanaugh's time as staff secretary in the bush white house. republicans argue we don't need to see the papers from that part of his career. democrats argue we most certainly do. republicans are being hypocritical and sophistic. in both cases, we said we need all the important papers. why? we need a complete record of who the nominee is. now they are saying well, counsel is okay but staff secretary isn't and kagan wasn't a staff secretary. so what? so what? the relevant standard is all the records. no matter what jobs they had. and the republicans are trying to come up with the difference for reasons that people are asking why. are they hiding something? is kavanaugh hiding something? wh

particularly, elaina kagan where the argument was her time at the solicitors general office, some ofse documents were too critical to be exposed. this argument that they should be able to see every piece of paper he touched and initialed while he was there is not going to fly. you have susan collins, one of those key swing republican votes that says i don't need to see that. that's way more than necessary. and chuck grassley who is head of the judiciary committee who will make this final call. think we will get you the paper from white house counsel but not everything thing he touched as staff secretary and that's a reasonable standard. >>paul: they are talking about providing a lot of documents at the white house counsel's office but it's that staff secretary position where i would argue james, those documents really don't relate to brett kavanaugh's thinking. they relate to the decisions that george w. bush made as president. therefore, they're not really relevant to the court. where as the solicitor general's, that would have told you what a lot of elaina kagan thought about judic

position at harvard law school to which he was appointed, by the way, by then-dean and now justice elena kagan. after graduating, he quickly built a reputation as a star law clerk, including on the supreme court for justice kennedy. as an energetic and talented public servant and as one of the preeminent legal minds of his generation. in 2006 the senate confirmed him to the d.c. circuit. he's compiled an extensive record on the federal bench. he published more than 300 opinions and earned considerable praise for his clear writing and reasoning. so, madam president, judge kavanaugh has built a long and distinguished record. he paints a clear picture of how he would conduct himself as a member of the nation's highest court. it reflects a firm understanding that judges must interpret laws as they are written. we do not choose them to make policy, to pick favorites, or craft novel legislation from the bench. now some of our colleagues and others on the left seem to see the role of judges very differently. president obama summed up this alternate view well when he was running for president. he expl

it was so flimsy, in fact, the judge kagan wrote in dissent that the majority over president quote, but not exceptional or special reasons but because it never liked the decision subverting all known principles of settled decision. justice roberts who said he would obey president calls balls and strikes as he saw them rather than interpret the law. sorry, justice roberts said he would call balls and strikes as he saw them and that he would interpret law rather than make it and of course it was justice roberts who is then responsible for her overturning 40 years of precedent in the citizens united decision. that setback of politics. that's so deep in the swamp that so many americans despise by allowing huge amounts of dark money, unreported , too cascade into our political system. on two of the most important rulings in the history of the roberts court, a cumulative 81 years president were thrown out the window despite the honest promises of justice roberts and justice gorsuch. at their hearings. so, when they say they will obey the law you cannot believe it. you can't believe it because

elena kagan worked in the white house. and they released all of the records, including their emails, so there is precedent requesting supporting the notion that these records need to be made available and carefully reviewed, and we would expect chairman grassley to obey that precedent. i think it is also important, because the supreme court nomination is so critically important, that the american people ought to understand and understand well who it is that is being considered for that particular role. therefore, i think it is incumbent on republican parties to make this information accessible, available, and give people ample time to review and digest it. siobhan: there is so much paperwork. how quickly, then, could the senate judiciary committee get to a hearing? nan: well, it is interesting that you say that, because i just read that rod rosenstein is to comeor calling out assistant u.s. attorneys to help , assistant u.s. attorneys to help review those records. i have no idea what the timing will be, all i would say is

yale, , aaw degree from yale lecturer position at harvard appointed by dean and justice scali elena kagan. a law clerk on the supreme court for supreme court justice kennedy. he is one of the preeminent legal minds of his generation. in 2006, the senate confirmed him to the d.c. circuit. he has compiled an extensive record on the federal bench. he has published more than 300 opinions and earned considerable praise for his clear writing and reasoning. long kavanaugh has built a and distinguished record. it paints a clear picture of how he would conduct himself as a member of the nation's highest court. it reflects a firm understanding that judges must interpret laws as they are written. we do not choose them to make policy, pick favorites, or craft novel legislation from the bench. some of our colleagues and others on the left seem to see the role of judges very differently. president obama summed up this alternate view well when he was running for president. he explained that he sought to appoint judges who harbored particular empathy for certain parties and certain cases. well, that's gr

we saw with elena kagan, she had to recuse herself when certain cases came up. we don't know if that is a part of the conversation. typically, we're hearing from the president that he's been coached, if you will, that he's not supposed to talk through the specifics. but we're not in the room to know if he's doing that. on the issue of abortion, some of these judges have not been in a position where a case that takes in any of those types of issues. there have been many cases that relate to reproductive rights that come to a lower level court where we would have seen decisions related to that. so we have to look more broadly, do they follow precedent and there is a large school of thinking that roe v. wade is settled law on the books for more than 45 years now. so it's an interesting question you pose. all things with president trump and this administration tend to have some addition allayers to it, and the fact that there could be issues that rise to the court. that could be an issue, and it may raise the issue at some point of recusal if that comes to being. ka

that was the reason he said he was against elena kagan. now brett kavanaugh, who spent several years working in the bush white house in legal and policy positions in that white house, and suddenly that doesn't seem to be a factor. how it will be a factor, senate democrats, and hopefully the judiciary committee, will demand to see all the memos that kavanaugh wrote to president bush, to find out what we know about his policy and legal positions. w when kagan was dominanominated,s put on a database. >> when he was serving on staff secretary, there's e-mails to and from. joyce, one of the questions -- what are the questions democrats should be drilling down on as it relates to this, or will they be drilling down regarding criminal investigations and the like? >> i think they'll have to drill down. it will be important to do it, because one to have bedrock issues that is at stake with this nomination is the integrity of the court. you know, we sit here and we debate as lawyers the finer points of constitutional law. but for the american people

elena kay dpan was a policy advisor, in the clinton white house as a lawyer, kagan. when brett kavanaugh is the staff secretary, had to put things through staffing, that's not where offer your opinion. you are trying to build consensus which he was good at. what do you think about the argument that the long paper trail will delay the nomination i don't think it's going to hold water. i think there will be an effort to move it quickly. senator mcconnell probably with the wheels of the majority leader can do that. whether it can all happen as the white house hopes by september 1, don't know. there are a lot of just rulings that he has put out there, that the senate would like -- those senators on the judiciary commit would i like to go through. i think that you have senator cornyn saying he thinks three democrats are going to eventually vote for kavanaugh. there's a lot of head counting. but one thing we know, senator mccain likely isn't going to come back and cast a vote. obviously, everyone hopes he does. likely he isn't going to. the calculation changes. as far as t

president obama nominated justice kagan. republicans asked for documents. even her clerkship for justice thurgood marshall. senator grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee, said at the time -- for the senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility, we must get all documents and have enough time to analyze them so we can determine whether she should be a justice. i agree. , unfortunately, republicans want to reply a completely different standard to judge kavanagh. they want his documents kept that he cantored so onto the court without having to answer tough questions about what he has written, said, and done. they maintain there is nothing in the documents that would be relevant. well, we cannot know this supposed relevance -- irrelevance, and neither can they, until we all see the documents. for some reason, the republicans seem worried. they seem concerned. they seem apprehensive. we haveican people and what are they, concealing? and why are they scared of it? what is judge kavanagh hiding? why is he afraid of it? that is the question he sho