every supreme court for vacancy under a republican president and one - - john paul stevens , david souter they said he wanted to her vulnerable people. john roberts was out to gethn health insurance. wouldn't you know the president barely finished saying judge amy coney barrett's name before the same old attacks began rolling in. there were 77 -year-old former vice president and 69 -year-old democratic leader tried to inform american women that the 48 -year-old working mom wants to hold back her own rights as a woman democrats have tried to fearmonger around a four -year-old academic paper to reinforce one unfair penalty and obama care which congress by the way has already eliminated three years ago. as an aside if the american people are interested to protect americans with pre-existing conditions, they can simply look up the vote just last night every single democrat voted against legislation from senator tillis to submit protections for those vulnerable americans. democrats voted to block conditions for existing conditions like hundreds of millions of dollars for coronavirus release ju

a quick note about david souter. you said it became an object lesson for future presidents.he republicans basically overreacted after bork. they saw what happened was someone who had a long track record of intentionally controversial or at least twist positions,wistable and they wanted someone who would be a good conservative on the court but without that kind of track record. being vouched for by john sununu, the chief of staff from new hampshire, and the senator from new hampshire, they pushed david souter, who had been attorney general in that state, and briefly on the supreme court in that state before reagan tapped him for the first circuit, and eventually picked him over someone with a much more visible conservative record, edith jones, who to this day is on the fifth circuit. she was appointed to the fifth circuit when she was 35, i believe, by president reagan. it had been -- it would've been very different if bush had gone with edith jones. susan: i'm sure everyone listening has memories of what happened, and we are noting that the current democratic presidential no

david souter, they said, wanted to hurt vulnerable people.n roberts was out to get health insurance. and wouldn't you know the presidented had barely finished saying judge amy coney barrett r name before the same old attacks began rolling in. eur 77-year-old male former vice president and our 69-year-old male senate democratic leader have tried to inform american women that this 48-year-old workingin mom wants to roll back her own rights as a woman, roll back her own rights as a woman. democrats is have tried -- democrats have tried to fear monger around a 4-year-old aiademic paper that reenforced one unfair penalty in obamacare -- which congress, by the way, has already eliminated three years ago. as an aside, madam president, if the american people are interested in which senators are serious about protecting americans with pre-existing conditions, they can simply look up the vote senators took last night. last night. every single democrat voted against legislation from senator tillis that would have cemented protections for these vulnerabl

and what they were referring to is justice souter who george w.h.bush nominated and he turned out to be a surprise. he turned out to be a progressive. and the federalist society vets these people. the idea of like have you talked to the president about roe v. wade? no. she talked to the federalist society, and the federalist society didn't have to talk to her. they know her all too well, obviously. and to get on this list, you have to be a 100 percenter. they won't put you on the list unless you are a 100 percenter. and the federalist society starts when you're in law school and they track you and you're not going to get a good clerkship if you are not a 100 percenter. we know exactly where she is on these issues. they want to get rid of the aca. you know, trump has wanted to get rid of obamacare, and nothing they offered -- i was there. nothing they offered guaranteed people with pre-existing conditions that they would be covered. he's never had a plan. when it went down, he said who knew health care was so complicated? and the answer to that was,

is wrong with us as american citizens and i hate to be blasted off by souter an attempt by the other fast to die and i don't think. i would vote for a republican. i would vote for anyone not you and asked. me to feel. like a wife. she can handle it. she and i divorce because our trouble is what the president and i floated for her and she can. win the most important election. in our history mr the months to go before the next presidential election is the atmosphere in the us i. want to the highest priority programs only they vote they do next. just some of the questions we put in there are. those so he draws in conflict known as number is not very hot we tell you what you need to know and it is america in 2020 acting out similar events. bolshevik revolution in 1007. 100 towards a full blown war the conflict between armenia and this. enters its 2nd point correspondent reports for me to speak to territory. things like this one on here. in fact this tiny village alone was said by 6. is one of them this is all the devastation that it has left. says come clashes between anti-government dem

senate just a quick point justice souter during his tenure in the roberts court to distinguish from the rehnquist court never offered a single majority opinion. just a couple of things when you were talking about the first amendment in the new technology i think a very important and i think the audience was to take note of this justice alida's concurrence in brown versus entertainment joined by the chief justice and let me. two sentences from that but i think it's very important. chief justice roberts concurring considering the application of unchanging constitutional principles to new and rapidly evolving technology this court should proceed with questions. we should make every effort to understand the new technology and we should not dismiss the judgment of legislators who may be in a better position than we are to assess the implications of the new technology. i think that's very very important and the only other thing i would add on the court this term and elect day dave if he wants his trump versus the ninth amendment in the case involving president trump's tweets in a public forum

the courts composition and found the top three justices on these issues work kennedy, thomas and souterddle, right, left. i'll throw that in. we have a lot of questions for i arty know we are not going to be able to get to the mall, thank you very much. more questions, feel three to submit them # bird otherwise our website is find ron and david before he opened up to the crowd questions. >> just a quick point, justice souter during his tenure on the roberts court, is not a single majority opinion. so big difference in court. just a couple of things. when your time of the first amendment with new technology think it's very important the audience ought to take note of it is the justice a concurrence with the brown versusus entertainment merchant, joined by the chief justice. let me just read two sentencesk from that. it's very important to justice khalil concurring joined by chief justice robert and consider the application of unchanging constitutional principles to new and rapidly evolving technology, this court, should proceed with caution permission make every effort to understand the

so justice souter came up with an idea he thought she could not resist. it was that she could pick any movie that she would like to see and we will watch it in the pictured theater and then we would have an appropriate dinner to go with the movie. the movie was red river with john wayne and montgomery cliff. it had every politically incorrect thing in it. it is sexist and racist. and we had popcorn. each of us. and then we went to the caucus room and the library and we had of southwestern dinner. bought >> our tradition on the court is that the least junior justice would welcome the next incoming justice by arranging a welcoming dinner. and so mine was arranged by sam alito. there was a wonderful dinner. he had a classical guitar player. he was playing spanish music, which i thought was quite beautiful and entertaining. the next year, when elena kagan came aboard i decided to call up one of her friends from harvard and ask them what they thought was her favorite food. the friend reported that her favorite food was chinese. well, i had a problem, which is

court composition and found that the top three justices on these issues were kennedy, thomas and souter so middle, right left. interesting finding allow throw that in and anyone else, we have a lot of questions and i already know we're not going to be able to get them all. more questions, feel free to submit them. before we open it up to the crown questions, ron and david 's a quick point, justice souter as distinguished fromthe rehnquist court he's never offered a single majority opinion . dust a couple things, lyrissa when you were talking about new technologies i think an important and i think the audience wants to take note of this is justice alito's concurrence in brown versus entertainment joined by the chief justice so let me read two sentences. this is justice alito joined by chief justice roberts and the changing of principles to new and rapidly evolving technology , this court should proceed with caution. we should make every effort to understand the new technology and we should not hatefully dismiss the judgment of legislators who may be in a better position than we are to as

what is wrong with us as american citizens and i hate to be bought off by souter and we have a bombastic wind bag and a bumbling fool yeah my 2nd wife. she can handle it. she and i divorced because the dollar trumps a little what the president and i voted for and she could stand for. i would be. a republican is a truck i would move for anyone who is not an. has half a brain will defeat dumb troll. with the future. we've listed a month to go before the next presidential election how is the atmosphere in the us now one of the highest priority problems how will they vote won't should they do next just some of the questions we put to americans. by name a sorin paul from 42 years old and i'm speaking from my living room in my house and i could make marilyn. per 15 years i was a water treatment technician for tricon chemicals but that job and the couple months ago there was a downturn in work. related to the 19 crisis and i was not able to retain employees they had let someone go and it was me. we are right now in the most important election. in our history that thrilled to be back in the gran

they'd appoint a liberal because the democrats couldn't get their own on the supreme court so david souter was put on the supreme court but you don't have that today donald trump was elected because he said i'll put conservatives on the supreme court was one of the main reasons people voted for him many oldham upset in the election so he's kept his promise he's kept his word and he's got the votes so he's doing it so when you say conservative judges and it's i think we may should make it clear we're looking at original lists ok now not not using the constitution to get the laws you want but to in to interpret be. laws as that was defined by the constitution so i think we have always have to make it clear you know. conservatives tend to be originalists obviously we're able it would speak to their i mean and for me i throw a plague on both parties if you can't get what you want to the legislative process both parties throw it to the courts is that a good idea and it doesn't make the court dysfunctional and become more dysfunctional there's going to talk about hacking in the 2nd half program

outcome of nominating these extremist-like extremist-like -- extremists like john paul stevens, david souter. i mean, the country was hanging in the balance. really? well, somehow everyone knows in advance it's nominations like bork, thomas, alito, gorsuch, kavanaugh, and barrett are certain to whip up national friend sis -- frenzies. while nominations like ginsburg, sotomayor, and kagan are just calm events by comparison. this blaring asymmetry predates our recent disputes. and it comes, my colleagues, from a fundamental disagreement on the role of a judge in our republic. we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. we just heard the democratic leader name all these things that are threatened by this nominee. it sounds very similar to the tunes we've heard before. we like many americans want judges to fulfill a limited role the constitution assigns to them. sticks to text, resolve cases impartially, and leave policy making to the people and their representatives, which is what we do here. we just spent four years qirnlg brilliant, qualified constitutionalists to the supreme court and

with the court composition to find the top three justices on thesese issues were kennedy and justice souter it so that is an interesting a finding. we can get to all the questions but thank you very much. but thank you very much. so when you were talking about those technologies that justice alito's concurrence to be joined by the chief justice i will read two sentences fromm that that he is concurring from chief justice roberts and considering the application of unchanging constitutional principles to new and rapidly evolving technology this court should proceed with caution making every effort to understand that technology is legislators that is the implications that first amendment institute so that case is currently before the court. >> i wanted to agree with bob there are certain areas the court has not addressed andd that is how does reed versus gilbert square with the commercial speech doctrine in the secondary effects doctrine? that is something the us supreme court created c with pure advertising second-class treatment. and what is interesting about this is justice thomas klein do

earl warren, william brennan, john paul stevens, david souter, harry blackmun of the author of roe versuswas a republican nominee and there's a reason for that. a lot of people are frustrated and want to know why we keep getting it wrong. i try come in the book, to analyze when we get it right and when we get it wrong. if you look at the justices who stayed faithful to their oath and the constitution, giants like antonin scalia and clarence thomas and sam alito and chief william rinker west, every one of them had a similar pattern. every one of them had served in the executive. every one of them had long championed conservative principles uncritically, every one of them had been excoriated in the press. pounded in the press and they hadn't wavered. that's what i look for the most. do you have a proven record and have you been through the fire. on the other hand where republicans get it wrong is when main nominate a stealth candidate who doesn't have a proven record, whose avoided controversy and hasn't been criticized but someone says trust me, they'll be great and over and over again it

david souter, some would say anthony kennedy. sandra day o'connor. even the chief justice. what makes us think that amy coney barrett is not going to become like one of them? >> i will take that. john. ok, so, we cannot overly rely on circuit court opinion. that is, i heard justice blackmun say years ago that he really had never thought about his philosophy until he got on the supreme court, and that rehnquist had signed off on him. so you've got to be careful. certainly you have to look not only at the results, you've got to look at the reasoning. but also it is character. that is what counts. and the question really is -- are they willing to be vilified? alito has been vilified, thomas has been vilified, scalia has been vilified. others when they tend to be vilified tend to go squishy. on the supreme court, it brings out whatever character weaknesses you have. if you are ambitious, the character weakness that tends to affect a lot of us is vanity. so when you are up there and you become the most powerful person, the media tells you, because you have the swing vote, it rea

they said that david souter the left ultimately praised these justices they attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. the democrats and their allies have shown there's no low that they won't stoop to in their crusa crusade -- i saw it all on this committee. someleue m try to misrepresent judge barrett's religious beliefs and affiliations. in 2017, they said absolutelied that judge barrett was too faithful or too catholic to be a judge. one senator asked whether she considered herself an orthodox catholic. another told her, the dogma lives in you. let me remind everyone that article 1 clearly prohibits religious tests for serving in public office. mr. chairman, five sentences left. judge, you'll no doubt be asked how you'll rule on questionsnd issueshe correctlycide i respect that you'll follow the example of justice ginsburg, no hints of he or she will vote, because that's the role of a judge. that's the place of a judge in our system of government. unbiased. fiercely independent. faithful to the rule of law and a steadfast defender of the constitution. ju

on capitol hill back in the 90s was an intern for the judiciary committee during the justice david souterince retired. the chairman at that time was joe biden. to now cover this and watch it come full circle in such an unprecedented period with a pandemic it is really going to be fascinating and i look back at the volumes and volumes as an intern of research and background that we have to provide this committee now will charge forward with such a limited amount of time to make this happen. this is a very fast process, obviously, the president wanting to move it forward before the election which would have significant legacy implications for him. in chairman graham saying we're going to do it here we go. so it's buckle up for the next three days with a lot of questions yet to be answered. griff quickly 30 second. knowing this process as well as you know it, are you expecting any procedural obstacles from the democrats that we've heard threatened over the course of the last couple of weeks? >> short answer, absolutely. they're fighting tooth and nail they will do anything and everything the

reminds people for all the criticism of donald trump, he did not appoint an anthony kennedy, david souter, justice roberts. gorsuch, kavanaugh, barrett aren pretty conservative and i think they will be consistently conservative. i kind of disagree with people who said it wasn't as bad asva kavanaugh. i thought it will hurt the democratic brand because hirono and blumenthal and others, they went way overboard in attacking someone who was brilliant and decent. it was gratuitous.hi more importantly, we are going to go into this election and see things we haven't seen in our lifetime with ballots that appear out of nowhere. contested elections. something i think may make 2000 look kind of minor in comparison. i don't trust justice roberts to be a conservative voice in those close decisions. i think it really diminishes the hamlet "to be or not to be" role of justice roberts. he's going to be less relevant than he was in the past with the addition of justice barrett. it tells the republicans that they can make great appointments like clarence thomas and justice barrett, and they don't have to

they said david souter would, quote, end freedom of women in this country. ultimately, the left praised these very justices that they attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown that there is no low that they won't tarnish a nominee. and i saw it all as chairman of this committee when kavanaugh came out. some of my colleagues may again try to misrepresent and outright disparage judge barrett's religious beliefs and affiliations. in 2017, they said -- suggested judge barrett was too faithful or too catholic to be a judge. one senator asked whether she considered herself an orthodox catholic. another told her the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is of concern. let me remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits relilegiouft. judge, you'll no doubt be asked how you'll rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you'll follow the example of justice ginsburg, a nominee should offer no forecasts, no hints of how he or she will vote because that's t

right now we're in the midst of cool weather and relatively calm conditions so souter tower cam showing you what is an inviting looking picture and well it is going to be inviting morning before winds do pick up later on today. now the area's impeach that you're seeing on the screen are actually or second round of advisories that don't go in effect until tomorrow through friday. it's the red flag warnings up in the north bay that are in effect right now for upper are in and sonoma counties all of lake and then on most of areas of napa and solano counties winds in these areas gusting as high as 25 to 40 miles per hour. what you're talking about those upper more exposed elevations where we could see a fast growing fire now winds not as significant as last week. temperatures not as warm as last week but we've just been so dry lately that uptick in wind speeds like we will see this afternoon results in that extreme fire danger that's why we're back at it this week as for winds this afternoon you do see regular gas into a range of 15 to 20 miles per hour as i mentioned those peak asked an up

the doomsday predictions about the outcome of o nominatig these extremists like bo stevens, david souter they were hanging in the balance. somehow everyone knows in advance thate nominations like thomas, alito, kavanaugh and barrett are in while nominations like ginsburg, or just call him even by comparison. this asymmetry predates the recent disputes and it comes from a fundamental disagreement on the role of the judge in the republic. we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. we heard the democratic leader name all of these things that were threatened by this nominee. its sounds very similar to the tunes we heard before. stick to the text, resolve the cases in partially and leave policymaking to the people and ththeir representatives which is what we do here. we spent four years confirming to the courts who understand their role. fifty-three circuit judges over 200 in total and we are about to confirm the third supreme court justice. the left thinks the framers got this all wrong. they botched the job. they didn't understand what the job ought to be. iseveral reaffirmed in rece

david souter they said wanted to hurt vulnerable people. john roberts was out to get health insurance. and, wouldn't you know, the president had barely finished saying judge amy coney barrett's name before the same old attacks began rolling in. our 77-year-old male former vice president and our 69-year-old male senate democratic leader have tried to inform american women that this 48-year-old working mom wants to roll back her own rights as a woman -- roll back her own rights as a woman. democrats have tried the to fear morning around a 4-year-old academic paper that reinforced one unfair penalty in obamacare, which congress, by the way, has already eliminated three years ago. as an aside, madam president, if the american people are interested in which senators are serious about protecting americans with preexisting conditions, they can simply look up the vote senators took last night -- just last night. every single democrat voted against legislation from senator tillis that would have submitted protections for these vulnerable americans.

they said david souter would "and freedom of women in this country." ultimately, the left praised that they justices attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown there is no low that they won't stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee. i saw it all as chairman of this vanaugh cameen ka up. try to my colleagues may sisparage judge barrett' religious affiliations. they suggested she was too catholic to be a judge. when senator asked others she considered herself in orthodox catholic. another told her the dogma lives lightly and you and that is a concern. let rate remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits -- let me remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits tax from serving in office. judge, you will no doubt be asked how you will rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you will follow the example of justice ginsburg, and nominee should offer no forecast, no hints at how he or she will vote, because that's the role of a judge.

they said david souter would "and freedom of women in this country." ultimately, the left praised that they justices attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown there is no low that they won't stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee. i saw it all as chairman of this vanaugh cameen ka up. try to my colleagues may sisparage judge barrett' religious affiliations. they suggested she was too catholic to be a judge. when senator asked others she considered herself in orthodox catholic. another told her the dogma lives lightly and you and that is a concern. let rate remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits -- let me remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits tax from serving in office. judge, you will no doubt be asked how you will rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you will follow the example of justice ginsburg, and nominee should offer no forecast, no hints at how he or she will vote, because that's the role of a judge.

outcome of nominating these extremist-like extremist-like -- extremists like john paul stevens, david souter. i mean, the country was hanging in the balance. really? well, somehow everyone knows in advance it's nominations like bork, thomas, alito, gorsuch, kavanaugh, and barrett are certain to whip up national friend sis -- frenzies. while nominations like ginsburg, sotomayor, and kagan are just calm events by comparison. this blaring asymmetry predates our recent disputes. and it comes, my colleagues, from a fundamental disagreement on the role of a judge in our republic. we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. we just heard the democratic leader name all these things that are threatened by this nominee. it sounds very similar to the tunes we've heard before. we like many americans want judges to fulfill a limited role the constitution assigns to them. sticks to text, resolve cases impartially, and leave policy making to the people and their representatives, which is what we do here. we just spent four years qirnlg brilliant, qualified constitutionalists to the supreme court and

they did it with anthony kennedy, they did it with david souter and with john roberts and recently with brett kavanaugh and now with judge barrett. most can see through the far-left hoax, but it's important to set the record right. judge barrett is not and has never advocated in favor of taking away anyone's health care, period. liberals have gone after judge barrett for her views on abortion, first of all, judge barrett has every right to enjoy her religious freedom. i think we all understand that. and i am saddened to see the attacks that she's received due to her catholic faith. nevertheless the record shows that she will thoughtfully apply to all cases. she has proven that she impartially and faithfully exercises her duties as an appellate judge. there's no reason to believe that she will not continue to do so as a justice. now, i want to speak about the precedent for acting on today's vacancy. it -- it differs from the vacancy of 2016. democrats and liberal media have called senate republicans hypocrites for opposing confirmation of president trump's supreme court nominee in -- in

they said david souter would "and freedom of women in this country." ultimately, the left praised that they justices attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown there is no low that they won't stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee. i saw it all as chairman of this vanaugh cameen ka up. try to my colleagues may sisparage judge barrett' religious affiliations. they suggested she was too catholic to be a judge. when senator asked others she considered herself in orthodox catholic. another told her the dogma lives lightly and you and that is a concern. let rate remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits -- let me remind everyone that article one clearly prohibits tax from serving in office. judge, you will no doubt be asked how you will rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you will follow the example of justice ginsburg, and nominee should offer no forecast, no hints at how he or she will vote, because that's the role of a judge.

they said david souter would, quote, end freedom of women in this country.ultimately the left praised these very justices that they attacked. their doomsday prediction failed to pan out. democrats and their leftist allies have also shown that there is no low that they won't stoop to in their crusade to tarnish a nominee. and i saw it all as chairman of this committee when kavanaugh came up. some of my colleagues may once again try to misrepresent and outright disparage judge barrett's religious beliefs and affiliations. in 2017 they suggested judge barrett was too catholic to be a judge. one senator asked whether she considered herself an orthodox catholic. another told her that dogma lives loudly within you and it's a concern. let me remind everyone that article 1 clearly prohibits religious tests for serving in public office. mr. chairman, i have five sentences left. judge, you will no doubt be asked how you will rule on questions and issues and whether the case was correctly decided. i expect that you will follow the example of justice ginsburg, a nominee