she had never served on the supreme court or federal judiciary. she was nominated by president obama. jeff sessions of alabama insisted on full documentation of her role in the white house. and, the democrat in the committee joined him in making that request. 170,000 documents were produced because of senator sessions and patrik laine his request. a bipartisan request rated established a standard. the same standard applied to the next democratic nominee. they had to carefully review before that person would serve in a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land? most assumed that point it was a practice in on the committee when it came to the documented proof we would ask for when nominees can be force for the supreme court. we thought that, but we were wrong. when republicans took control, everything changed. it changed with anson scalia's untimely death and vacancy. president obama sought to fill it during his last year in office. he ended up nominated merrick garland. the d.c. circuit court judge of impeccable credentials to fill the

but we are glad to have this opportunity to talk about the supreme court. we obviously have a very consequential, probably, two months ahead of us here, and we have great experts here to talk about the supreme court. gave brief bios. glad to introduce minor ds -- mario diaz. anappears in media and is expert on constitutional law. glad to have you from virginia. marx, friend, gary medicine strategies, senior advisor to the judicial prices network, which is sort of the lead conservative organization on the supreme court fight and has been very effective over the years. walker andsed scott marco rubio. great to have you in from atlanta. welcome to austin. why don't we may be just give you each a few minutes to set the scene for us about the stakes, the battle we are in brettelated to kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court? just take a few minutes and then we will talk about specific things. mario? mario: thank you, max. withs great to be in texas beautiful people and strong conservatives. i love it. coming here from the swamp, it's always refreshing to co

so today, we are standing here on the steps of the supreme court, where just a few months ago, the supreme ruled against working people in the janus case. validated voter suppression tactics, and even even upheld the cruel muslim ban. this is not the america we are fighting for. this is not the america we want to live in. we are now at a pivotal moment in history. because we cannot let trump reshape the highest level of country with a pick like brett kavanaugh. an extreme judge whose record is alarming not only for workers, but for women, immigrants and so much more. working women, like all of us here today. kavanaugh because we know how high the stakes are. and we are not going to lose this fight. so i am proud to introduce a friend and a badass woman warrior. ok. let me switch it up. actually, still a badass woman warrior, senator gillibrand. [applause] >> hey, everybody. [applause] >> quite a day yesterday. >> yeah. >> so, we all know that our president was implicated in a federal crime yesterday. it is a good reminder for all of us that nobody in this country, including the president,

supreme court already in his career. prior to joining his current firm, he served as an assistant to the u.s. in general as an advisor on the iraq constitution process to the u.s. ambassador for iraq. please join me in welcoming our panelists. [applause] he's an adviser on the iraqi constitutional pro >> rebecca, the floor is yours. >> a lot of people have said that judge kavanaugh is humble and don't to earth. those are true. similarly, people have said he is quite normal. that again is true. that alone would be individual for -- unusual for someone as accomplished as him. he is not actually just normal. way nicer than normal. he is not only approachable, he is more approachable than almost anyone you will ever approach. i don't just mean amongst the ranks of judges on the justices on the supreme court. .e has a great sense of humor he laughs that basically every , even have ever made though objectively they are not more than 10% funny. he is one of those people that makes you feel good. it is not unusual for law clerks

today we're standing here on the steps of the supreme court where just a few months ago the supreme courtgainst working people in the janus versus asked me case, but it still for suppression tactics in a folded the cruel muslim ban. this is not the america that we are fighting for and this is not the america that we want to live in. we are now at a pivotal moment in history because we cannot let trump reshape the highest level of courts in our country with the pic like brett kavanaugh. an extreme judge his record is alarming not only for workers but for women, immigrants and for so much more. working women like hollister today, let's give up -- [applause] working with will stop kavanaugh because we know how high the stakes are and we are not going to lose this fight. so why am proud to introduce friend and a bad ass women warrior -- okay. let me switch it up. actual still a bad ass women warrior, senator gillibrand. [applause] >> hey, everybody. [applause] so quite a day yesterday. well, we'll know our president was implicated in a federal crime yesterday, and it is a a good reminder for

court nominees, joins others talking about supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh's confirmation process, confirmation hearings begin september 4th, later from the conference the look at government accountability. >> all right. those lights are bright. but we are glad to talk about supreme court and have consequential probably two months ahead of us here and we have great experts here to talk about the supreme court, gave brief bios but happy to introduce mario dÍaz general counsel concerned women for america, leading social conservative organizations, appears in media, expert on constitutional law and glad to have you from virginia, thank you for coming to austin for gathering and my old greened gary marx, judicial crisis network, which is the lead conservative organization on the supreme court fight and has been effective over the years and gary was executive director of freedom coalition and advised scott walker and marco rubio and lots of other people over the years, great to have you in from atlanta, both of you welcome to austin. so why don't we give you a few minutes to set scene

we have had an number of supreme court nominees before us. the standard of disclosure established by senator jeff sessions of alabama, the ranking republican at the time on the committee -- and the standard leahy hasi patrick been trampled on and ignored by republicans when it comes to their own nominee, brett kavanaugh. what is in these documents the republicans did up to share with the american people? what did mr. cavanaugh say or do or right during that time that we ought to know before he becomes the swing vote on the united states supreme court for more than a generation. the second issue i raised goes back to an earlier time when he came before the committee under oath and i asked him questions about his role when it comes to the detention of combatants. and i didd to say -- not bring my glasses. this may be a struggle in this light situation. i asked him about his role and i was noti did not -- involved and was not involved in the questions about the roles of -- of rules governing detention of combatants, so i do not have the involvem

by far the most ever received from a supreme court nominee. the majority staff will finish reading every one of these pages before judge kavanaugh's hearing which starts the day after labor day. i'm following the precedent that was established during justice kagan's confirmation when the senate asked for many, but not all, of justice kagan's executive branch documents. we received documents from two out of three executive branch positions that justice kagan held. we received documents from justice kagan's time in the white house counsel's office and domestic policy counsel. senators from both parties agreed not to request internal documents from her time in the office of solicitor general because of their sensitivity. likewise, then, we're asking for documents from two of judge kavanaugh's positions in the executive branch but not from a third following the practice of justice kagan's confirmation. we have asked for documents from judge kavanaugh's time in the white house counsel's office and the office of independent counsel, but we didn't as

as we do with every supreme court nominee, we were not doing anything less. as you to have a fair can see, demonstrated by the material that will be available for the supreme court nominee, it is probably the deepest dive we have had into the background of a supreme court justice, at least from the quantity of the material available of any previous supreme court nominee. alreadya million pages are in the process of being made available. five times more receives, a single nominee, and one of my researchers said that may be fivered to the last supreme court nominees, it would be more than all of them added together. this, by the way, these boxes here do not contain any of the moremation of the 300 or cases that judge kavanaugh has had serving on the d.c. circuit judge. the committee is already reviewing more than 8500 pages of cases that he participated in, and it also does not include the material that came with judge kavanaugh's questionnaire. so i hope we can see from the , and it was developed by republicans and democrats. it is the most in depth required o

cases ingued seven front of the supreme court. advisor on the rocky constitutional process to the u.s. ambassador to iraq, and as the director at the national security council. please join me in welcoming our panelists. thank you for having me. about what judge kavanaugh is like as a boss. a lot of people said he was humble and down-to-earth. but that does not capture the full extent of the man. -- larly people have said he is not just normal. he is way nicer. he is not only approachable, he is more approachable than almost anyone you will approach and i don't just mean among the ranks on the d.c. circuit. he has a great sense of humor, very easy laugh. he laughs at basically every joke i made even though less than 10% are funny. he is one of those people that first make you feel that during -- it's not unusual for law clerks to bring their family to visit the clerk and meet the judge. everyone's family is diverse, and have differing levels of sophistication. with the judge you don't need to worry about that. it doesn't matter if

supreme court to overturn roe v. let's take the president at his word. he says he intends to appoint somebody who will overturn roe v. wade. that is exactly who judge kavanaugh is. so we have to fight against him. [applause] we also have to recognize we are in a moment where women's voices really do matter. time's up, me too, it is about women's voices. that is about men and women to be heard and have some measure of justice. to have these cases be investigated. that is what this moment is about. and judge kavanaugh is such a horrible choice because he does not value women. this president does not value women. they do not believe that you should have the ability to have the basic human right and human dignity to decide what happens to you and when. it is outrageous that we are having to look at this judge and his record without all the documents. without everything he has done. without all his work product. but make no mistake, we know what his view is on women. we know what his view is on choice. we know what is you

this is an exemplary track record in the supreme court to have your opinions backed up by the supreme court. not once, but 13 times. judge kavanaugh is dedicated to judicial independence. he is not afraid to tell another branch of government when that branch has exceeded its lawful authority. at the same time, he has great respect for the separation of powers. and will interpret the law as is written by the people's representative in congress instead of trying to be a super legislator. so i hope that all of my colleagues are looking forward as i am to hearing from judge kavanaugh when he appears before the judiciary committee on loseptember 4. i yield the floor. >> tonight booktv is in prime time with a look at recent books on the civil rights movement. georgetown university professor michael eric dyson discusses his book, what truth sounds like. james baldwin and our unfinished conversation about race in america. janet bell on her book light in the fires of freedom.james swanson in his book chasing kings killer. the hunt for more luther king junior is assassin. booktv all this week i

him off the supreme court. [applause] >> thank you so much. the next person i am proud to day -- introduced today, she has been leading this whole damn fight. daythe president and ceo of the leadership conference for human rights. >> hey, everyone. you guys are standing out in the rain. what do we want? we want justice. what are we want? -- what do we want? justice. that everything is at stake for our freedom. do we know that? all of the groups represented today are fighting for the soul of our country. that is exactly what is at stake. let's take a moment to reflect on what happened yesterday. we have a president who is essentially and i indicted co-conspirator. whoas nominated somebody believes a president should not indicted inted or matter what the wrongdoing is. we know exactly why he nominated him. there is no secret about what is going on. the senate should not confirm a indicted in that there ise wrongdoingman ws no accountability for a president out of control. this hearing has to be halted and stopped

the appeal to the supreme court. so what does the supreme court do? we will see if they want to move slowly, step-by-step, or if they are faced a year or two from now with a state that has essentially banned abortion. maybe they can find some middle position. i think it is also possible that somewhere down the road they thissay roe was a mistake, is not part of the constitution, this is something to be decided by the people, and we could have a system where it is back to each state. that is the way the death penalty played out in the 1970's. the court was on the verge of striking down the death penalty nationwide, they then backed away from it. now we have a system that plays out where texas and mississippi and other states have the death penalty. massachusetts and michigan don't. other states are in between. they have the death penalty, but they never executed anyone. i think it is possible that abortion could, down the road, go the same way, that the court could step back and say, this is a mistake, we will leave it up to states. some states would r

the supreme court. besaid the standard should clear enough, not crystal clear but clear enough standard. the first week i think you will see justice kavanaugh different from his former boss, justice kennedy is he is more of a textualist. the second way is built on a case the justice already talked about witches a net neutrality regulation case. justice kavanaugh in the first half of that decision explained his approach to the major questions doctrine, which is an exception to chevron deference. this exception got fanfare in obamacare. chief justice roberts, writing for a six justice majority applied it and said when it comes to statue ambiguities that provoke a question, we are not going to defer to the agency. you are asking us to defer to the irs about how to regulate billions of dollars in the health market. that is a major question. we are not going to defer. justice roberts still found a way for the irs to win. exceptionhis question to chevron deference. in the net neutrality regulation, judge kava

the supreme court. he is a graduate of duke universiry and harvard law school, and i would be remiss if i did not mention that he and i are both graduates of the same grade school in louisville. go bears! next up, chris walker is associate professor of law at the ohio state university school of law where he researchers administrative law and regulation. he is a public member of the administrative conference of the united states, and before entering academia, he served in the justice department criminal representing federal agencies and defending federal regulations in a variety of contexts. he clerked for judge alex kaczynski on the ninth circuit and justice kennedy on the supreme court. he has a ba from brigham young university, a masters in public policy from harvard, and a jd from stanford. then, we will hear from jennifer mascot. she is assistant professor of law at george university's scalia law school where she teaches administrative law and fed courts. she is also a public member of the administr

a number of which were adopted later by the supreme court and cited repeatedly by the supreme court. ofi will peel off a piece judge kavanaugh's jurisprudence with structural safeguards in the constitution to think judge kavanaugh has written a lot about this in his jurisprudence and there are two themes that a lot of his opinions and separate writings talk about. one is the safeguard of separation of powers. that is a term we used to talk up the fact that the three branches of government at the federal level all have different roles to play. judge kavanaugh has told us quite a lot about what he thinks the proper roles are under the constitution. another structural safeguards it is a distinct safeguard involves the president and his role within the executive branch. i think the executive branch comes up a lot because it is the most complex branch with a but of layers. so judge kavanaugh has written quite a bit about what the executive's proper role is in being able to supervise that branch. these things come out in his writing. basically, he has emphasized that to keep accountability

the iraq war and abuses. , a supreme court's nominee score of cases that came before the supreme court on critical issues related to detainees and others. warrantless wiretapping of american citizens which he specifically recalled was an issue he had to discuss specifically with the president. the national security letters of the patriot act, second amendment unless the list goes on. the point i am making is that 35 month period of time where he served as staff secretary to president bush was a time that was rife with issues of great constitutional moment. it is the reason the american people have a right to know what he said, how he advised the president, what he wrote. those are things which the republicans are hiding from the american people and keeping secret. i asked him about this man, bill burke. who is he? he is an attorney here in washington. even with don mcgann in the room, i said as he and official government employee? no. we don't think so. bill burke is the final filter of documents from the archives to congress and the american people. he is deciding. this private lawyer

supreme court and following those. treating all litigants alike, in all instances, whether they are people that are popular or unpopular, or big corporations or small individuals, i think that his record stands for itself. >> okay. down here. >> i'm deputy director -- sorry -- you're the director -- [laughter] >> of the center here at the heritage foundation. the yale letter that was mentioned had that line in it about, you know, women will die and there have been other statements that were very apocalypse about the future of the country is at stake and this is on a path to tir rany and we're all going to fall into abyss and that sort of thing, while some of that is kind of over the top, it does reflect a view that the judiciary is really -- you know, the center of gravity, that it decides all of these things, that the future of all reality is up to the courts to decide. what is -- how would you describe judge kavanaugh's view of sort of that place of the courts in the larger sphere of things? and did he communicate th

potential presidential candidates talk about supreme court nominees going forward? because this has been a very effective device for him. >> i absolutely think so, and i have to say, in my time, i have 15 years working on nominations, i have never seen a president be so transparent with the american people in letting them know -- even when he did not have this political track record, by committing -- he not only put up the number. he said i will choose from the list. and then follow through in that commitments. it has been remarkable to see. i do think he changes at least for the conservatives, for the republican side, there will be more scrutiny and more of an incentive to do it because you are being, you know, when you think about the issues we care about, you know, a lot of the issues that we like, our president trump has taken action, they are issues where the next person will do the opposite. executive action is exact, and go. the work of the judiciary -- neil gorsuch will be there for 30 years. it will go way beyond the time that president trump gets to be the

we don't have any power over the supreme court. for those americans who look at the court as a fast and untouchable structure, wondering, what is that like? who is he? what would you say to them about your future on the court? >> i will do my job as long as i think i can do it properly. question.a you were much more polite. how will i know? and i go gaga. case ofhere was the homes or somebody who had to go mr. justice, i think the other members of the court feel you have done a wonderful job here and it may be time to think about that thing down. he had to see homes. he made the same point. you remember the day you went off and saw justice whatever it was and told him it was about time maybe he step down? he had done a great job? he said i do remember, and a work, i have never done. we all go gaga at once? we want. it will become apparent to me, as it does to people as they get older, that this seems to be about the right time, and there we are, and that is the most i can say. we are grateful to have heady for this time. ladies and

circuit court justice brett kavanaugh 's nomination to the supreme court. take a few minutes each of you they will come back and talk about specific things. mario?>> thank you. and i want to thank gary for the panel and eric for this wonderful conference. it is always great to be in texas with beautiful people and some conservatives. i love it. coming in from the swamp you know is always -- refreshing to come here. [laughter] i would like to set the stage for you where we are. we've a terminus opportunity and we should not take it lightly. if you remember, the nomination and confirmation of justice neil gorsuch, which we celebrated and worked so hard for, the replacements of justice antonin scalia. you are basically replacing a strong constitutionalist with a strong constitutionalist. we were basically trying to preserve the status quo, if you will. if you remember it was kind of an amazing thing how we got there because you heard from selena and before, they said hillary was a shoe in. she was going to win and going to get to nominate the replacement for a

i participated in 10 supreme court nominations. i would like to take the opportunity to ask the chairman respectfully to ensure that the records are released before the hearing. in the same manner that has been done for previous supreme court nominations. it may seem trivial to debate how many pages we can or cannot review or what is public and what is not public, but withholding even a small number of documents from the senate or public could prevent key facts from being known. this is true because there is so much at stake in this nomination. if confirmed, brett kavanaugh would be the deciding vote on cases involving individuals' rights to privacy, liberty, and autonomy in the most personal aspects of their lives. the fundamental rights guarantee that parents and not the state can direct the upbringing and education of their children that women can make their own reproductive health care choices and that all can marry whom they love and carry out medical decision-making without the state. this nominee will also be the deciding vo

we have no power over the supreme court. for those americans who look at the court as a vast untouchable structure and you within it, wondering what is that like, what would you say to them about your future on the court? >> i will do my job as long as i think i can do it properly. i got a question in this form, really hedging around, how will i know when i go -- >> oh, my gosh! >> -- i figure was homes or somebody had to go up and see in the field, mister justice, i think the other members of the court feel you have done a wonderful job here and somebody -- i can't remember, maybe it was feels, the same point, remember when you saw justice, done a great job and i do remember and a dirtier day's work i have never done. what happens if we all go at once? we won't. it will become apparent to me as it does to people when they get older that this seems to be about the right time and there we are. that is the most i can say. >> ladies and gentlemen, justice stephen breyer. >> appreciate it. >> supreme court nominee brett kavanaug

i don't know what he will do on the supreme court. based on whatink, he has written and said, he was skeptical about it and questions whether it is a thing the court should stick with forever. >> if abortion restrictions are upheld by a new majority on the supreme court, how do you think we could see this issue play out going forward? >> depends on what you mean -- >> and the lower courts? >> depends on what you mean by restrictions. there are these 24 hour -- there are a lot of things that women have to be told, or shown a sonogram before, make women think twice about abortion. suppose a state, mississippi or thatiana, passes a law says no abortions after six weeks. we're going to criminalize abortion. that law gets struck down by lower court judges because of roe v. wade. what does the court do? we will see. whether they want to move whetherstep-by-step, or they face a state that has essentially banned abortion. maybe they can find some middle position where regulations are ok. i think it is also possible that five of them will say

so as a long experience here in georgetown and supreme court at the new york times. ten years. congratulations here on the tenth anniversary we are covering the court. and our writings on the court every week during the term and that is indispensable for those of us that follow the court. and to capture what is going on taking between six months and one year and then or what goes on in real time. to go 45 or 50 minutes take it away. make that nice introduction and after an introduction like that you might say i wish my parents were here my father would have liked it my mother would have believed it. [laughter] so we are here to celebrate this great new book and known to journalists to be leading election expert and that we should stick in your lane but here they are. just to be an informal conversation. with those experts. so let me start at a a broad level of generality with the politics of disruption what do you mean by that? >> first if i i get to that, thank you to georgetown law center and to michael panelist panelist -- too cold panelist. but justice leah was a polarizing

the supreme court. called brett kavanaugh a judge's judge and noted he is one of the finest legal minds of our time. for the past 12 years, judge kavanaugh has served on the d.c. circuit. he has written more than 300 opinions and demonstrated he is a judge the tries to interpret the constitution and laws according to the text. he has said the text of the law is the law and judges are not authorized to rewrite laws simply because they think they should be updated. he has written extensively on and off the bench about separation of powers and statutory interpretation. he has co-authored a book on judicial president -- precende nt. the senate judiciary committee will hold a hearing in three weeks to examine judge kavanaugh's record and philosophy. today we have a panel of distinguished experts to discuss judge kavanaugh's most significant rulings in the areas of individual rights, administrative law, and national security. in order to get to our panelists, i will keep introductions brief. first up is justi

he says, but when you're a justice of the supreme court or you're chief justice of the supreme court,you're obligated to rule on principle. and you can't do a little at a time. you can't do a little of the principle at a time. you have to do it all at once. and that was earl warren. >> well, what about the fact -- suppose i said, yeah, but they never actually explicitly overruled plessy v. ferguson. i mean, do supreme court justices really -- >> well -- >> -- only give a little principle? >> well, i think my reading of brown v. board basically, and we can have our constitutional law scholarly constitution on this, but my reading of it is that it renderedded plessy v. ferguson a nullity, absolutely. >> what about your mention of lincoln raises another issue, and as i'm sure everyone knows, you've written several books about presidents and chief justices, one of whom was lincoln and tawny, which was another superb book. >> that's right. >> but conferring there's jefferson and -- considering there's jefferson and marshall and lincoln andny, and then you wrote about fdr and hughes and now

supreme court. he's an adviser on the iraqi constitutional process and as a director for the iraq table of the national security council. rebecca? good afternoon. i'm going to talk about what judge kavanaugh is like. a lot of people say that judge kavanaugh is humble and down to earth and those are true. those cliches don't quite capture the full extent of the man. people have said that he is quite normal, that again is true. again, it's not quite right. he's not just normal. he is way nicer than normal. he is not only approachable, he is more approachable than almost anyone you will approach and i don't just mean among the ranks on the d.c. circuit. he has a great sense of humor, very easy laugh. he laughs at basically every joke i made even though less than 10% are funny. he is one of those people that first make you feel that during -- it's not unusual for law clerks to bring their family to visit the clerk and meet the judge. everyone's family is diverse, and have differing levels of sophisticat

wade is overruled by the supreme court. there will be states, a sizable number, that will not go back to the way it was. at the time of roe vs. wade, there were four states that gave women access to abortion without any questions asked in the first trimester. those states are not going to change. what it means is a woman who can afford a plane ticket, a bus ticket, will be able to decide for herself. whether or not to have an abortion. but the women who won't have that choice are poor women. justice scalia: these are political questions for the american people to decide. that is what democracy is about. do you think abortion should not be prohibited? fine. persuade your fellow citizens to pass a law. you think the opposite? persuade them the other way. but don't tell me the constitution has taken that issue out of democratic choice. it simply hasn't. host: there we have two members of the current court, and also united states senators, laying out the continued divisive arguments. we have only three minutes left. i want to g

we don't have any power over the supreme court. for those americans who look at the court as an untouchable structure, wondering what that is like, who is he in there. what would you say to them about your role on the court? justice breyer: i will do my job as long as i think i can do it properly. [applause] i got a question this form. you are much more polite. gaga?ll i know when i go it may be time to think about stepping down. i think brandeis or somebody said -- i can't remember the name. said, you remember the day you the justice who said it was about time he of step down. he said, yeah, i remember. a dirty your days work i have never done. what happens if we all go gaga once? we want. ,t will become apparent to me as it does to people as they get older, that this seems to be about the right time. and there we are. that's the most i can say. mr. johnson: we are grateful to affect you for this time. [applause] thank you, sir. appreciate it. [applause] >> tonight, at 8:00 on c-span, new york times white house correspondent talks

justice on the supreme court has ever done that.by doing that he has contributed to diversifying this legal profession. it's not just hiring us, it's also that he goes on to be a lifelong mentor and an advocate for us and that makes a difference. i know a lot of people have talked about membership and advocacy in general terms, and what can sometimes be ok, what does that mean? it is more than that. alto a small story that is unusual. for judge kavanaugh the year before i clerked for judge scalia. i was still in law school. while i was in law school, i had begun working for the judge, he encouraged me to apply to work which iupreme court, wasn't sure about. he reviewed my application , before i submitted them, while i was still in law school judge kavanaugh learned that justice scalia was interviewing candidates for clerks, that would be after my give a judge kavanaugh. the judge called one of my professors and says something like, i think the backup would be a great fit with justice scalia. did she said if you are willing today wou

for the supreme court. based on the number of documents alone, this will be the most thorough vetting of a supreme court nominee in our nation's history. i've only been here 42 years, but i can tell you this the most thorough vetting of a supreme court nominee in our nation's history. we should call this hub-bub about documents what it really is, a naked partisan ploy, a red herring meant to distract the american people from judge kavanaugh's indisputable credentials. watching this confirmation unfold is like watching the tortured last moments after blowout basketball game. democrats are down 30 with seven seconds left, but they get fouling to attempt to avoid that his defeat. enough already. madam president, it's time democrats come home from their fishing trip. we could spend eons angling for scandal in the documents the judiciary committee provided us, but nothing will bite because there's nothing there. democrats know this by now and it's time they admitted it to the american people. the longer they wai

the truth is it's not just limited to our nominee to the supreme court.emocrats have tried to defeat or delay almost every single judicial nominee the president has set up her confirmation. -- has set up for confirmation. an unprecedented 42 district court nominees who are waiting for a senate vote. when the time comes, nearly every nominee draws significant if not universal opposition from democrats. the truth is there are a handful of democrats that vote with us from time to time but it's a small number. look at neil gorsuch, he had a unanimous and well-qualified rating from the american bar, though he had been confirmed by the senate in 2006 unanimously, all but three democrats voted against confirming justice gorsuch. they are pulling out all the stops on judge kavanaugh. it used to be unthinkable, not long ago, it was unthinkable that a senator would announce their opposition to a nominee before the nominee was announced. [laughter] but that actually happened, five senate democrats announced they were opposed to president trump's nominee to the supre

the leader was convicted and his case went all the way to the supreme court and the supreme court of the united states rejected his assertion that the first amendment protected him. thatejected his assertion he had a right to a jury instruction that he couldn't be convicted in the absence of proof that his leaflets post a clear and present danger to immediate violence. that decision was the ascendancy of the order and morality theory. the justices opinion in the case openly alluded to hitler's and the holocaust and then talked about illinois sort of history with racial division. make thisllinois can a crime because it has an inherent tendency to lead to violence. it tearsmore broadly at the fabric of society. so you have in front of you right now a person who railed -- i said to the justices, you should consider those cases over. and i suppose the question for our discussion today is was i right or was i wrong? thanks >. [applause] panelist isd joseph. he is assistant professor at the university of north carolina chapel hill. his creative and professional work as well as his resource

now i will be your guide to arguably the most powerful branch of government the supreme. now i will be your god. the supreme court seriously that was not there before the court will soon have a replacement for justice kennedy who finally retired from what i thought was a retirement home while people live in fear of what nominee kavanaugh might do once and fix the realization on its face they forget to look at the damage the supreme. has already done for one the court ruled in favor of the masterpiece cake shop owner jack phillips who refused service to a same sex couple citing his first amendment rights and he was worried the cake would come out of the oven ok but masterpiece bakery won the battle but lost the war jeb at least clip. the bigger hitter one because a colorado official said one inappropriate word about refusing service is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to use their religion to use despicable that's not even something you can bleep that's really disappointing but despicable showed anti-religious hostility or in other words re

if we do all we can we will have a new justice on the supreme court named brett kavanaugh. for decades to come. we will keep this economy growing and this america more stronger and prosperous. president donald trump in the white house. i know we will make america safe again. we will make america great again. thank you. god bless you and god bless america. ♪ >> we will have more from the trump administration later today. the president will visit ohio for a political fundraiser in downtown columbus. his speech begins at 6 p.m. eastern. live coverage on c-span. eastern, theght senate hearing at the institutes of health. a special project on spinal muscular patch p. exciting in the columbus ohio, which recently tested gene therapy. are infants not expected to survive more than 15 months. over the next few months something truly traumatic happened. 100% of the kid to get the highest those -- highest dose of gene therapy were alive. like 3.5 cannot only talk and walk, she can even do push-ups. >> and listen with the free c-span radio app. the democratic national committee holds i

constitution means as united states the supreme court. i think just kennedy did have a would be here he looking at a variety of sources to inform his decision. saw that during your time clerking with him? long as always surprised, on the bench. i thought he would have his a number of n issues. cases, the court can get 10, 20 cases. see ld show up, did you 23 so and so said on page briefs. amicus he did take very seriously, everything presented to the variety of sources. he wouldn't be controlled, but valid to look at. >> the court received a lot on next case, 2007, right of at guantanamo bay, ruled 5-4 that they have the appear before a judge and know what they're being detained for. listen. are freedomng these rom arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal separation of powers. our opinion does not undermine he executive's power as commander in chief. the exercise of those powers has when ated, not eroded confirmed by the judicial branch. ithin the constitution separation of power structure, few exercises of judicial power or nece