flake could determine the future of the cap not nomination. back -- kavanaugh nomination. that gives him leverage. we have to make sure we do all due diligence with this nomination after extracting a promise from republican leaders to delay a vote on the nomination until after the investigation. this country is being ripped apart here." we want to know what you think about the fbi reopening the investigation into brett kavanaugh. if you support him, call (202) 748-8001 --(202) 748-8000. if you oppose him, call (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, call (202) 748-8002.we are to have john calling from california. john opposes brett kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. ppose him.ose -- o i am also very disappointed in this process. it is just not going to make any difference taking a one-week hiatus for the fbi to do an investigation. i think we all know that. they will just find another excuse to delay. host: let's go to lori calling from maryland. she supports brett kavanaugh. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: hi support kavanaugh -- i sup

the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, william f. jung of florida to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, kari a. dooley of connecticut to be united states district judge for the district of connecticut. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, dominick w. lanza of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second. there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

you can see the concern over the nomination. .. to make a decision when the bush white house torture, iraq, there were so many things brought forward not to be able to understand his position on these issues. so have you withdrawn your motion? >> mister chairman, i would be willing to withdraw my motion. >> your motion is withdrawn. >> but i want to state for the record, i want to state for the record that that motion is withdrawn only because it is now moved. it was made as a matter of pending business at the start of this meeting. i recognize the reality the chair has the gavel . there's no way to seek justice here. i disagree with the chair. i'm here under protest. there is a fundamental unfairness here because mine should have been the first order of business. the chair, in my view with all due respect, preempted that right on the part of a committee member who insists on that motion as a first order of business . and iwould yield to my colleague .>> wait a minute, we're going to have some order here on how people speak but to

or the nomination of job kavanaugh. at the end of that meeting and we were about to take oath, senator jeff, our colleague announced the decision that he would request

in the nominations process. that is why i believe it would be a mistake for the committee to issue a subpoena, thus setting up a court case which could go on for years before it is finally resolved as to whether the claims are privileged were valid or not. sen. grassley: senator feinstein said to me she was hoping she could use her opening statement. i'm willing to put my opening statement in the record if you want to go to your statement and then we will go to the business if we can. senator feinstein: we have motions that relate to the kavanaugh proceedings. >> i also have a motion when you can get to me. sen. grassley: you have a motion? i will take your motion but i should call on senator durbin first. >> i defer to the ranking members opening statement. sen. grassley: i would like to get these motions on the way before we do our business. >> i would like to observe that every member of this committee has gone back to their homestay -- home state and told people when asked, it is time to restore civility in

ofjudge brett kavanaugh, approve the nomination ofjudge brett kava naugh, the approve the nomination ofjudge brett kavanaugh, the full senate vote would have ta ken brett kavanaugh, the full senate vote would have taken place next week but what has now happens is that a motion has been put forward for a one—week pause for the full senate vote to allow for a potential fbi investigation. let's cross live to gary o'donoghue in washington, a moment of confusion, take us through what we've witnessed in the last 5-10 what we've witnessed in the last 5—10 minutes. what we've witnessed in the last 5-10 minutes. you thought you were getting to the end of the story but you are not, another twist in an extraordinary process which has divided this congress and this country. what we have seen today is jeff flake, the republican senator from arizona, opponent to donald trump, a man stepping down later this year, he said he would back the nomination of brett kavanaugh, it was a key republican vote because that made it ii—io was a key republican vote because that made it 11—10 on the committee, howe

i cannot support this nomination. madam president, i would like to end the remarks i would've given at the markup that i'm giving those remarks on the floor now. i would like to say that my colleague, senator jeff flake has said that he would not be able to vote on the confirmation of judge kavanaugh without an fbi investigation into the current allegations. i support that. i have no idea if the republican leadership is going to allow a timeout for that kind of investigation to occur, and investigation that i and others the democratic members of the judiciary committee has been calling for for what seems like months and of course, i would want an fbi investigation to be thorough. i don't want a peripheral investigation to give cover to senators who are wavering. i would want investigation by the fbi to be thorough, real, provide us with information that we need to make a determination as to the credibility, candor, and character of judge kavanau kavanaugh. >> madam president, the judiciary committee had an extraoar

to send his nomination to the full senate.y get back, and immediately it is clear something is crazy. something is going unexpectedly, and it is clear that flake has been talking to the minority and having second thoughts. there was not a lot of republicans did you get it may only have a one-c majority on the jud >> he has made it clear, he is not going to vote to confirm the nominee unless they go forward with the fbi investigation which has now been ordered. it seems to be the case he had been in communication with other swing vote senators in making that decision. what do you think was the specific tipping point for senator flake? what changed his mind between announcing in the morning he was going to vote for the nomination and coming to the judiciary committee saying i will vote him out that i have to have this investigation before i will vote for him on the floor of the senate? guest: there's a lot that has been made of some interacts -- interactions flake has had in the capital with folks who have become folk heroes. i

assault that leaves his nomination in mortal jeopardy.ording to nbc news, judge kavanagh spent the majority of today in white house counsel don mcgahn and others from the counsel's office calling key members of congress in a direct effort of damage control. actually a desperate effort. and here's the breaking news tonight. the senate judiciary committee announced it will hold public hearings this coming monday with kavanagh and his accuser christine blosey ford t. came from all ten democrats on that committee. chairman chuck grassley requested a delay saying there are, quote, serious questions about judge kavanagh's record, truthfulness and character. a growing number of republican senators have also expressed concern over the allegation and said that the senate needs to hear from the accuser. the white house said in a statement tonight judge kavanagh looks forward to a hearing where he can clear his name of this false allegation. >>> earlier in the day the president reaffirmed his support for his nominee with the reservation that he, the

when this nomination first came to the senate, i was skeptical. like the nominees descending to the lower federal court, i expect we will see a nominee hand-picked by the federal society and heritage society caring out the right wing supported by the president. it turned out to be much worse than i imagined. not only was a nominee someone who fit that description and became clear that he was someone who lacked candid, credibility and character. at the hearing from doctor ford and brett kavanaugh and yesterday, a well respected judge,re endorsed judge kavanau. they said, while we previously endorsed the nomination of judge kavanaugh on the basis of hisat legal credential, and his representations, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn. as they proceed with nominations, they will be prioritizing ames over a woman's report of assault. in addition, robert, president of american bar association, issued a letter urging that the committee of the senate to not vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination until there is an embed fbi investigation

that's why his nomination is in deep trouble. perhaps that's why in poll after poll the plurality of americans say judge kavanaugh should not be confirmed. let us get the facts. let us stop smearing women who have the courage to come forward. let's get to the bottom of this in a correct, appropriate, and dignified way. that's what the american people want. and that's what we should be doing in a bipartisan way in this chamber. i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, it is so ordered. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i wanted to come to the floor and talk for a few minutes to talk about the unfortunate circumstances we find ourselves in as a result of the failure of the ranking member of the judiciary com

the nomination died. and burgess everett was there to their democrats cheering about it behind the doors of senator dick durbin's office. that was seven weeks ago. republicans are in control of the u.s. senate but only barely. they only have a 51-49 majority. at the time of that ryan bounds nomination seven weeks ago, that's when senator john mccain was out sick. so at that point wasn't 51-49. it was 50-49. that meant it would only take one defection to sink any judicial nominee or any other vote in the senate as long as democrats stayed unified in opposition. now senator mccain has been replaced. now it's back to 51-49. that still means the only two republican senators people off on any one vote or nomination, as long as the democrats are unified, that nominee is toast. now after 31 hours of hearings for brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court, it is becoming clear that democrats are proceeding -- republicans are broegs that very, very nomination in mind. there have been some forgive me, i thin

so back to antony scalia's nomination. i remember one of the controversies about that and his nomination, not so much as background, but the fact that he was italian and how italian-americans had to mobilize in the country that we need to move forward from this perception of who we are as a nationality and ethnicity. clarence thomas's nomination of course, that was -- we all know that. it has been replaying out this week. george h. w. bush did make the request for the fbi to reinveste then the nomination process got back on track. of course supreme court , two nominations during george w. bush, justice roberts and then harriet miers was nominated and that had to be pulled back. i remember watching the alito hearings in my office and seeing seeing martha alito crying and then mrs. bush calling her and saying, it is going to be ok. this is politics. this is what people who go into public service unfortunately have to put themselves through. i hope that it doesn't keep people from being willing to serve their government. when

i'm holding over the nomination -- >> mr. chairman, i moved to adjourn. >> okay. >> you ruled at our hearing that my motion to adjourn was out of order at that time. i believe it was pending before this committee and so i moved to adjourn. we lack the time. we lack the documents, and we need witnesses before we can proceed further with this meeting, mr. chairman. >> i've already taken action of holding cabinet over. i would entertain your motion but i would also like, as long as we have quorum here and that we have -- >> mr. chairman, with all due respect that motion was proper before we begin this is. i asked -- >> you didn't have the floor. i have for. >> the motion was pending and asked for a vote on it to proceed in the business before the committee. >> just everybody understands, the reason i i wanted to come e got some people because of the weather situation in the southeast that one is to get some things done before we, so that's why wanted to take the motion that i did on cabin already. >> with all due respect, mr. ch

are you hopeful they will be able to stop the nomination?appen,i doubt it will what i think the republicans should think about is this might come back to bite them in the if a democrat wins the presidency next time and and the an opening democrats pull the same thing republicans are doing. do you see what i am saying? it is like they have to look into the future. the decision republicans are making now could come back and bite them. host: here are the numbers and here is how the breakdown would work in the piece in today's new york times by carl on washington, noting senator schumer and his party can do little to stop the confirmation of judge kavanaugh without the help of republicans since his nomination can be brought to the floor and approved by a simple majority vote. absent some major disqualifying -- republicans seem intent on putting that kavanaugh on the supreme court. daniel is in washington, d.c., an independent. go ahead. caller: thank you. i would like to carbon -- comment on a case that came to it wasavanaugh last year him on a

kavanaugh was nominated to the court. from my understanding, there are multiple ways to keep her privacy, respect -- keep her privacy respected, keep mr. kavanaugh's privacy respected and do investigations and find out if they still wanted to nominate this person to the supreme court. and then again, as other people have said, when it finally did , i to senator feinstein can't imagine what reason she didn't find a way to look into this, to share it with the committee and also to keep ms. ford's privacy. all these things were possible. highway kathleen let me ask you something. you identify as a democrat, you said you're conservative. do you feel out of sync with you're party not only on this ssue but other issues? caller: let me clarify, i'm a republican. i got the wrong number. i told them when i called in. host: that's ok, appreciate your call. we go to our republican line, kingsport, tennessee. this is j.d., go ahead. make sure you mute your television and go ahead with your comment. caller: yes. yes, sir, i have and f

then in 1991, president bush nominated clarence thomas. and so by the time thomas is nominated -- by that point there's a well-established expectation that the fbi has to be pretty freaking thorough when it comes to background checks for supreme court nominees. we're not going to have another douglas ginsburg situation here. all right? what the fbi does with these nominees is not a criminal investigation, like they would do if they were planning to potentially prosecute someone. it's just a review, a very comprehensive review of every little thing in the life history of that nominee, to see if there's any derogatory information that might reflect badly on the character or experience of this nominee. honestly, remembering that douglas ginsburg fiasco, the background check for nominees is also supposed to turn up information that might adversely affect the prospects of confirming that nominee to the court. that's why the fbi background check on a potential nominee is handed over to the white house, so the white house can then make a decision

not one senator voted against justice scalia is nomination -- scalia's nomination. that was before judges were viewed as policymakers rather than fair and neutral interpreters of the constitution and the laws drafted by congress. today is 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 the four 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. he would remind us that legislators may appeal to their moral convictions and to 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." this hearing is an outstanding way to remind the american people that proper role of judges under our constitution. our constitution provides for a federal government and delegated and liberal powers to prot

in 1991, president bush nominated collnominat nominated clarence thomas. by the time thomas was nominated, there was a well expectations that the fbi had to be thorough when it comes to background check for supreme court nominees. we are not going to have another douglas ginsburg situation here. what the fbi does with these nominees, it is not a criminal investigation like they would do if they are planning to prosecute someone. it is a review of every little thing and the life history of that nominee. to see if there is any derogatory information that may reflect badly on the character or the experience of this nominee and honestly remembering that douglas ginsburg's fiasco. the fbi is also supposed to turn up information of confirming that nominee to the court. that's why the fbi background check on a potential nominee is handed over to the white house. so the white house can then make a decision based and part on that background check whether or not they should nominate that person pfor the court. when clarence thomas was nominated by george h.w. bush,

for you the president that nominated you has said i will nominate someone who is antichoice and pro-gun and we believe what he said. we cannot find the documents that absolve from that conclusion. so what women have won through roe and a host of privacy cases to be able to control their own reproductive system, to have basic privacy rights, really extraordinarily important to this side of the aisle. i hope the other side of the aisle as well. last year you drafted a dis sent in a case where a young woman in texas was seeking an abortion. you argued that even though the young woman had a h complied with the parental notification law and secured an approval from a judge she would nonetheless be barred. in making your argument, you ignored and i believe mischaracterized a supreme court precedent. you reasoned that jane doe should not be unable to exercise her right to choose because she did not have family and friends to make her decision. the argument rewrites supreme court precedent and if adopted, we believe, would require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient suppo

judge kavanaugh showed america why i nominated him. his testimony was powerful, honest and riveting. this process has been a total sham. an effort to delay, obstruct and resist. the senate must vote. no mention in the statement about christine blasey ford. that was someone the president was watching testify intently. he called her testimony, i'm told, compelling. he found her believable. he clearly wanted to hear from judge kavanaugh. he wanted to hear anger and push back from judge kavanaugh. that is what judge kavanaugh ga gave him h. i'm told he turned that audience around. the president did not want him to lose faith in his nomination. that, in turn, rallied the conservative base. this is not a done deal at all. as this weekends at the white house, president trump certainly feeling better about the supreme court nominee than he has in more than a week. dave and christine. >> a long day for jeff zeleny. thanks. >>> nearly 60 people arrested among the hundreds who took to the streets to protest kavanaugh's nomination. thursday's hear

she had to withdraw her nomination. public support for kavanaugh's nomination is lower than harriet myers enjoyed before she had to withdraw. at least one national poll for kavanaugh's nomination is lower than what we saw for robert bork. he insisted ongoing all the way through to a vote and not withdrawing the way that harriet myers did. bork was rejected by a large bipartisan party in a sense. >> that's a fair nomination. and public support is not everything. the public does not get a direct vote on supreme court nominees. it is striking in this case. that support is so low for kavanaugh. ultimately that kind of thing does end up mattering to senators. if they have reason really seriously consider their vote here. ultimately, it does matter to elected officials particularly right before an election when more americans don't want kavanaugh confirmed or do want him confirmed. brett kavanaugh is under water that way. more people want him rejected than want him confirmed. in that environment with a week of unpopular nomin

well there's no question that this is a pivotal nomination and this is a nomination that democrats said even before this process began that they were going to vigorously oppose because they feel that this could shape the court in a direction they do not want to see the united states go so we saw the the ranking democrat the senior senator in the u.s. senate saying that in fact he would oppose this with the socially every fiber of his being as is the paraphrase on the other side we have conservative seeing this is one of the reasons that they voted for donald trump seeing this as nothing more than a smear tactic this was a top priority and so well this could potentially be rail this nomination because if he were to withdraw his name there would be no time before the congressional elections to push another nominee through so what could happen if that were to occur is that you could see these elections in november become even more pivotal given the fact that not only do we expect that democrats are going to come out in full force to push back against the trauma genda but you would see cons

the nomination.00% of the republican conference supports proceeding to the kavanaugh nomination. now, in committee they reviewed the most pages of documents ever produced pertaining to any supreme court nomination. literally hundreds of judicial opinions from his tenure on the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. in five days of hearing during which judge kavanaugh testified for nearly 40 hours. judge kavanaugh testified on every topic from complicated legal subjects to sensitive personal matters. there was testimony and statements from countless personal friends, classmates, co-workers, former clerks and other associates. so the picture that emerged from all of this is clear. judge kavanaugh is one of the most qualified and most impressive supreme court nominees in the history of our country. he's excelled at the highest levels of legal scholarship. he holds two degrees from yale, and for years has lectured at the harvard law school. he's issued more than 300 legal opinions from what is widely con

and decision on nominate? and what gunning mr. haines' role in crafting the interrogation policies? >> senator, i did not, i was not involved and am not involve in the questions about the rules governing detention of come, combatants. >> what about the documents relating to the administration's practices and policies on torture? did you see anything about that? did you first hear about that when you read about it in the paper? >> i think with respect to the legal justifications, or the policies relating to the trefl detainees, i was not aware of any issues on that or the legal memo that's came out until the summer, sometime in 2004 when there started to be news reports on that. this was not part of my docket in the office or staff secretary. >> i was not involved in questions about rules involving combatants. that was not part of my docket. his answers did end up being good enough for the senate. he got confirmed to the d.c. circuit court that year. typically that's the end of the story. after confirmation hea

this is your nomination. are now embarking on this journey in this committee, denying us access to documents which were routinely provided for other judicial nominees. you had to have known that was taking place. >> senator, i think what justice scalia said in his hearing when he was asked about his office of legal counsel memos is the right thing which is that's a decision for the senate and the executive branch to work out. as a nominee, i will -- and there are long-term privileges and protections, as he mentioned, that were in effect for that discussion. and it's not for the nominee to make that decision. >> well, that is an interesting comment because the way you're being presented to the american people with only 10% of the public documentation that could be provided to this committee is going to reflect on you and your nomination. and of course you know that. >> well, i guess i, again, looking at the nominee precedent, senator, that was true in justice scalia's case. all his memos from 1974 to '77 when

chairman grassley must postpone the vote on judge kavanaugh's nomination until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated. the f.b.i. conducted a background check on judge kavanaugh before these allegations were known. the f.b.i. when they did their background check had no knowledge of what went on here. so it is now the f.b.i.'s responsibility to investigate these claims, update the analysis to judge kavanaugh's background, and report back to the senate the f.b.i. is the right place for this investigation for two reasons. first, the f.b.i. has the resources, the information, and the legal tools to conduct an investigation the right way, far better than some staffer talking to professor ford on the phone. you cannot lie to the f.b.i. that's a crime. the f.b.i. will get to the truth. they almost always do. second, our republican colleagues have run a transparently partisan conversation process, and then they immediately insinuated that dr. ford is being untruthful. republicans and their staff cannot impartially investigate these allegations. the

don't nominate in the last year of a president. do nominate in the last year of a president. don't nominate in the last year of the president. just depends who the president is. principles are very negotiable because they have none. exhibit 5. go. >> it is my view that if a supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, president bush would consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not, and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed. mark: but it looks like joe biden, now vice president at the time, and his boss, president obama, took a different position when obama was president. this is from cbs news, march 16, 2016, exhibit 6. go. >> i ask that they confirm merrick garland now to the supreme court so he can take his seat in time to fully participate in its work for the american people this fall. he is the right man for the job. mark: so antonin scalia unfortunately passes away and want to put their guy in. few years before, they said no, you can't do that. bush

nominations kavanaugh was involved in. >> charles pickering's nomination to the fifth circuit is, the committee learns he collected letters of support from lawyers who appeared in his courtroom and practiced in his district. it became an apparent some of these lawyers had cases pending before him. when they wrote the letters judge pickering requested. did you know that judge pickering planned to solicit letters of support in this manner before he did so? if not, when did you become aware that judge pickering had solicited these letters of support? >> the answer to the first question, senator, is no. this was not one of the judicial nominees that i was primarily handling. >> brett kavanaugh telling it the senator under oath that this nomination of charles pickering was not one that i was primarily handling. his characterization of that work on the nomination of that judge has now been contradicted white house documents that republicans apparently intended to keep confidential so they couldn't be released to the public. those documents got released to the public this week and it turns o

the original plan had the senate getting the nomination from the committee and waiting over the nomination to get debate on brett kavanaugh but the senate won't be this weekend as was the original plan. a procedural vote to break a filibuster on monday and there won't be a big confirmation vote tuesday. what is notable about the timetable is what mitch mcconnell didn't do tonight. the republican moved to overcome a filibuster. the process takes four days. on day one you moved to cut out debate, a cloture petition the senate. a full calendar data lapse in between, the next day too. the vote to break the filibuster and end debate occurs on day 3. if the senate votes to crack the filibuster opponent of the nomination are allotted 30 hours to make their last stand. confirmation vote up or down is on day 4. that means we might not have a confirmation vote on brett kavanaugh until next weekend or even as late as the week of october 7th. >> there is growing frustration on the hill at the continual roadblocks for brett kavanaugh. one of them thrown up today by retiring gop senator jeff flake. kris

about -- information about your nomination.n your decision by those to put your nomination before u us, and to exclude the documents, then the unilateral classification of documents coming to this committee as committee classified in a matter that no one has ever seen in the history of this committee. judge kavanaugh, that reflects on your reputation and your credibility. if you said at this moment, i have cloud over this nomination, i'm prepared to suggest to the committee and asked the committee humbly please withhold further hearings until you disclose everything. why won't you do that? >> senator, i do not believe that's consistent with what prior nominees have done in this circumstance, if the decision for the senate and the executive branch. justice scalia explained that very clearly. >> are you happy with that decision? >> it's not for me to say. the long-term interests of the senate and the executive branch, particularly the executive branch are at play. and justice scalia i believe explained that as well. >> i wasn't h

the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 1001, 102, and 1003, and all nominees placed on the secretary's desk, the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that no further motions be in order, any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on environment environment and public works be discharged from further consideration of s. 1417, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1417, a bill to require the secretary of the interior to develop a categorical exclusion for covered vegetative management activities and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the com

for you, the president that nominated you said i will nominate someone who is antichoice, and pro-gun. and we believe what he said. we cannot find the documents that absolve from that conclusion. so what women have won through roe and a host of privacy cases to control their own reproductive system, to have basic privacy rights, really, extraordinarily important to the side of the aisle. and out the other side of the aisle as well. last year, you drafted a dissent in garza versus harden. i believe that is where a woman was seeking abortion. in that you argue that even though the young woman had complied with the texas parental notification laws and secured an approval from the judge, she should nonetheless, be barred. in making your argument, you ignored and i believe, mischaracterized the supreme court precedent.you reasoned that jane doe should not be unable to exercise her right to choose because she did not have family and friends to make her decision. the argument rewrites supreme court precedent. and if adopted, we believe would require courts to determine whether a young woman

for you, the president that nominated you, has said i will nominate someone who is anti-choice and pro gun. and we believe what he said. we cannot find the documents that absolve from that conclusion. so what women have won through roe and a host of privacy cases, to be able to control their own reproductive system, to have basic privacy rights, really extraordinarily important to this side of the aisle. and i hope the other side of the aisle as well. last year, you drafted a dissent in garza v hargen. that's a young woman in texas that was seeking an abortion. in that dissent, you argued that even though the young woman had complied with the texas parental notification law and secured an approval from a judge, she should have nonetheless be barred. in making your argument, you ignored and i believe mischaracterized a supreme court precedent. you reasoned that jane doe should not be unable to exercise her right to choose because she did not have family and friends to make her decision. the argue re-writes streupreme court precedent. and, if adopted, we believe would require courts to d

"washingtonday on journal," we discussed the brett kavanaugh supreme court nomination

it's followed by every nomination since watergate until the day. and my question still recurs, what is being hidden and why? every white house record we received is hand-picked by your deputy in the bush white house. a hyper conflicted lawyer who also represents a half-dozen trump administration officials who are under investigation by prosecutors in the rush investigation a. these partisan lawyers decide which of your records the senate but more importantly the american people, the american people get to see. countless documents that have been provided to the committee contain apparent alterations and omissions with zero explanation. no court in this country, certainly no court i ever argued cases before would accept this as illegitimate document production. and the united states senate shouldn't either. more than 40% of those documents we received, almost 190,000 pages, are considered to be confidential by chairman grassley. for the vast majority of them, does not even conceivable argument to restrict them. compare this to the near 860 documents

for you, the president that nominated you, has said i will nominate someone who is anti-choice and pro-gun. and we believe what he said. we cannot find the documents that absolve from that conclusion. so what women have one through roe v. wade and a host of privacy cases, to be able to control their own reproductive system, the basic privacy rights really, extraordinarily important to the site of the aisle. and hope the other side of the aisle as well. last year you drafted a distant in a case where a dead woman in texas i believe with seeking an abortion. in that dissent you argued that he was a young woman had complied with the texas parental notification law and secured an approval from the judge, she should nonetheless be barred. in making your argument you ignored and i believe mischaracterize the supreme court precedent. you recent that jane doe should not be unable to exercise her right to choose the tissue did not have family and friends to make a decision. the argument rewrites supreme court precedent, and if adopted, we believe, would require courts to determine whether a young w

he tweeted, this is why i nominated this guy. but now in the wake of this last 11th hour switch, i think the white house's calculation is, we don't want to upset thispr ess. maybe we're pretty close to getting where we want to be. so i think the pre very restrained and is determined not to be provocative. >> it's got to be tough for him, molly. flake has been quite the foil. what have you made of flake's decision? is this a retiring senator doing his own thing? ak he actually trying to check the box to sure the nomination goes through? what's the read? >> well, y know, say what you will about jeff flake, he's a very earnest man. he's styled himself as the conscious of the senate in a way that annoys both party es. he's loyal enough for the republicans to like him. but then for the never trumpers he doesn't stand up for trump enough but he's tooco ervative. he's retiring because of his opposition to the president. he wrote a whole book and will be in new hampshire on monday -- robert: is this part of t 2020 gambit? >> i have no id

the nomination to the d.c.it was a tough fight, but republican special interests fought for more than three years to get him confirmed and for the past 12 years as a judgeut is wrote by the dissenter majority in line with their political and ideological agenda. president trump has selected judge kavanaugh to have pieces that will change some of the most recent assumptions american staff about their lives and government. more than 730 judges every day. most of these cases and trial court. some of them are peeled and heard in the appellate courts. the closely divided supreme court hears very few cases. many times fewer than 100 every year appeared before justice kennedy retired chemist so many important constitutional rights for hanging in the balance decided on narrower grounds by 5-for about and now they have left the forces to workers rights with algae btg rights, voting rights, civil rights of all kind and environmental protections are eager to secure agh solid majority on the courto support their right-wing

i cannot support this nomination. madam president, i'd like to end the remarks that i would have given at the markup, but i'm giving those remarks on the floor now. i would like to say that my colleague, senator jeff flake, has said that he would not be able to vote on the confirmation of judge kavanaugh without an f.b.i. investigation into the current allegations. i support that. i have no idea if the republican leadership is going to allow a time-out for that kind of investigation to occur, an investigation that i and others, the democratic members of the judiciary committee, have been calling for for what seems like months, and of course i would want an f.b.i. investigation to be thorough. i do not want some kind of a peripheral investigation to give cover to senators who are wavering. i would want an investigation by the f.b.i. to be thorough, to be real, to provide us with the kind of information that we need to make a determination as to the credibility, candor, character of judge kavanaugh. i yield the floor. t

with the nomination of brett kavanaugh whose nomination hearings will begin tomorrow.preciate. stay with us. us much appreciate. stay with us does this map show the peninsula trail? you won't find that on a map. i'll take you there. take this left. if you listen real hard you can hear the whales. oop. you hear that? (vo) our subaru outback lets us see the world. sometimes in ways we never imagined. a single tap offerss to peace of mind.y, uber is giving you new ways to tell loved ones you're on your way. uber is moving in a new direction. forward. how much more does congress need to see? donald trump has now been implicated in two felony crimes, and he's all but confessed to them on fox news. no one is above the law, so we have to make sure this president doesn't use pardons to cover up crimes. if you agree that a president should not be allowed to pardon himself or his associates, join us at needtoimpeach.com. the washington establishment doesn't have the courage to act, but the american people can. the doctor's office just for a shot. but why go back there... when yo

this entire process has cast a cloud over judge kavanaugh's nomination. democrats strongly object to moving forward when so much of his record remained secret. we are shocked at the efforts being undertaken to jam this nominee through and hide his record from the american public. we go to these hearings under protest. thank you. that will conclude this event, and i'm delighted to have all of the members of the judiciary, of the democratic party of the judiciary committee. so thank you very much. >> host: we are just about half an hour away on the beginning of brett kavanaugh is confirmation hearing. we are joined by author david kaplan into we take you do this hearings. david kaplan up with a new book this week on the supreme court. you were listening to senator feinstein concerns about these confirmation hearings. can you talk about what you heard? >> guest: i actually didn't use the butter for the democrats for most of the summer, and they are really bad at politics. you can agree or disagree with whether brett kavanaugh should be on the court but they

i've said a number of times that justice gorsuch's nomination and judge kavanaugh's nomination have almosta superlegitimacy in that they were ratified, they were decided by the american people in a direct vote in 2016. and so the democratic obstruction today is all about trying to reverse that election. they're unhappy with the choice the american people want. and there's a reason that the american people want strong constitutionalists for the u.s. supreme court. most americans, and i don't know the overwhelming majority of texas, want judges who will follow the law and not impose their policy preferences on the rest of us, and who will be faithful to the constitution and the bill of rights. justices who will uphold fundamental liberties like free speech, like religious liberty, like the second amendment. that's what this election was about, and if you look at each of these, let's take free speech. it's worth noting that in 2014, every democratic member of this committee voted to amend the united states constitution to repeal the free speech provisions of the first amendment. and sadly, ev

it's a nomination to the supreme court. the highest court in the land, that determines through their legal rulings, the lives of americans and in many instances is seen as the arbiter of right and wrong. are we going to let this happen? not even hear what someone who believes she was terribly aggrieved, and i believe her, has to say? when the credibility of a supreme court justice is on the line. we're going to just brush it under the rug? and again, after delaying merrick garland for over a year with no explanation why we can't wait a much shorter period of time, the double standard, the twisting of this body into a cruel, nasty partisanship unprecedented in a feverish desire to fill the bench with people the other side agrees with, it's one of the lowest points i've seen in my years here. one of the lowest points. i want to applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have called for hearings. i believe one way or another six have said it should be delayed. i hope they'll be strong and i hope they'll tell lead

the president that nominated you has said i will nominate someone who is anti-choice and pro-gun and we believe what he said. >> the n.r.a. has poured g llions into your confirmation promiseir members that you'll break the tie. they clearly have big expectation on how you'll vote on guns. >> you are aspiring to be the most decisive vote on the supreme court on critical issu. but over and above all of those things is this. you are th donald john trump.nt this is a president who has shown us consistently heco emptuous of the rule of law, and it's that president who has decided that you are his man. you're the person he wants on the supreme court. you are his personal choice. are people nervous about this? are they concerned aboutt? of course they are! >> desjardins: kavanaugh listened attentively, but silently. republicans tried to speak for him, were enflaming partisan emotion. >> i hope th week we can all take a deep breath. we're not doing very well so far. and get a grip and treat this process with the respect and gravity it demands. >> go ask anyone who practices regularly before