they get to the supreme court. they are the deciding votes in the youngstown steel case which was an extraordinary national moment, one of the great moments. and so it's -- your conception of the role of a judge is, it's about the law. that's distinct from policy and our judiciary depends on having people in it. and we are fortunate to have a wonderful federal judiciary. people in it who understand the difference between law and policy and are willing to apply principles of equal justice under law to anyone who comes before the court, even the most unpopular possible defendant is still entitled to due process and the rule of law. i've tried to ensure that as a judge. >> it's hard to imagine a more unpopular defendant than osama bin laden's driver. personal bodyguard. so i find the suggestion that somehow you are prejudiced against the small guy, in favor of the big guy, or that you are picking and choosing who you're going to render judgment in favor of, based on something other than the rule of law, i think this a

they get to the supreme court. they're the deciding votes in the youngstown steel case, which was an extraordinary moment. your role of a judge is about the law. that's distinct from policy and our judiciary depends on having people in it. we are fortunate to have a wonderful federal judiciary. people in it that understand the difference between law and pomsy and willing to apply principles of equal justice under law to anyone who comes before the court even the most unpopular possible defendant is still entitled to due process. >> it's hard to me to imagine a more unpopular defendant than osama bin laden's driver. and personal body guard. so i find the suggestion that somehow you're prejudiced against the small guy in favor of the big guy or that you are picking and choosing what you're going to render judgment in favor of based on something other than the rule of law, i think this answers that question conclusively for me. the fact that you could separate yourself from the emotional involvement you had along with

you have earned the respect of the supreme court as well. as you know the supreme court has adopted the position and your opinion no less than 13 times. that's something nobody can really argue against. you've authored landmark opinions on the separation of powers, administrative law, the national security. you served as a mentor to dozens of clerks and hundreds of law students, male and female. some of whom did not share your philosophy. your student reviews are off the charts favorable, even by those who may not have completely agreed with your philosophical approaches. on some matters. you volunteer in your community. [shouting] >> mr. chairman, i asked for order. you volunteer in the community, coach youth basketball. you're the sort of person and of us would like to have as a friend and a colleague. you also apparently like to eat pasta with ketchup, but nobody is perfect. now, this being politics and this being a supreme court confirmation hearing -- [shouting] -- my democratic colleagues actually -- [shouting] >> i got a minute. [shou

>> the supreme court has said it can be. >> i know the supreme court. what do you believe, sir? you've decided numerous times. >> i have trouble departing from the supreme court precedent and saying -- >> but you were replying about it in e-mails, in wall street journal articles. you just can't say right now what you believe. >> a couple things, senator. just to back up. that was written for a client in the e-mail you're reading as well. >> it was the christian science monitor. now getting to some of the things you were talking about. the explore has said for decades that institutions of higher education have a compelling interest in student body diversity and that race can be used as a factor. not the only factor but a factor if it is done so in a way that is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. >> i am following the precedent of the -- set by the eight justices currently sitting on the supreme court. and to put it in the terms of justice kegan, it would be ibappropriate to give a thumbs -- inappropriate to give a thumbs up or thumbs down. >> the distinction between you --

the supreme court -- this was -- the supreme court in the united states v. richard nixon -- >> isn't it fair to say that executive privilege belongs to the president of the united states, the chief executive? >> yeah, it can also belong to the former president in the case of former presidential records. that's one caveat that i want to put on that. >> fair caveat. is the assertion of executive privilege by the president subject to usually review? >> well, of course, because united states -- under the precedent, united states v. richard nixon, said two things. it said one, the executive privilege is constitutionally rooted. the special prosecutor in that case argued that actually there was no such thing as executive privilege. and the supreme court rejected that argument and held that the executive privilege is rooted in the separation of powers and in article ii but secondly -- >> the reason i'm asking doesn't have much to do with you. it goes back to a point that we were talking about earlier in the hearing, which is that we have received hundreds and hundr

this is the supreme court so suspicion. this is the supreme court so he has to withdraw.matic experience of a woman and we are questioning the veracity, either her memory was failing or she has a knotty emotive —— she had an ulterior motive. he has a presumption of innocence. the attack documents that were launched on christine blasey ford were undignified. this was an image out of gilead and we are in 2018. when you say you believe in the presumption of innocence but, what you're saying is you don't believe in it. why is she not given at trust? she's not being accused of anything. she is, she's being accused of lying. there's no way we're going to get to the bottom of that unless proper time is given to investigate the allegations. he was to clear his name and is and what this hanging over him, why not go through a proper investigation?” interviewed a republican on friday who said, he could have had a long stay, not just the who said, he could have had a long stay, notjust the one week we're looking at right now. the best thing to do for the due process was to have a ver

supreme court history. the four i've always identified are marbury verse madison, youngstown steel, brown versus board of education, and united states versus richard nixon. why have i -- brown versus board, by the way, the single greatest -- >> was it rightly decided? >> i have said that, yes, that the court's holding that a criminal trial subpoena to a president, in the context of the special counsel regulations in that case, for information, a criminal trial subpoena for information, under the specific regulations in that case, i have said that holding is one of the four greatest moments in supreme court history. not only -- i can explain how the misunderstanding came up. i know there was a news story about that. that's just not correct impression of my views. my views have been consistent. why was it one of the greatest moments? it was one of the greatest moments because of the political pressures of the time. the court stood up for judicial independence in a moment of national crisis. we need the suprem

i proud to support his nomination for the supreme court.hat is a republican senator from ohio over twitter last night. one other senator on the judiciary committee is chris coons, the democrat from delaware. he put out a twitter video about what he plans to ask judge kavanaugh about. [video clip] >> i am u.s. senator chris coons from delaware and a member of the senate judiciary committee. next week, we are going to be iving ahead, even though don't think we should be at this time, because we haven't gotten all the relevant documents, with hearing from judge kavanaugh, president trump's nominee to serve on the supreme court. one of the things i will be asking judge kavanaugh about is the key case usb nixon. it was decided -- u.s. v. nixon. by as decided back in 1974 court that decided then president nixon had to hand over the tapes of recordings of conversations in the oval office. president nixon strongly resisted this and there was a subpoena to him by archibald coxe and rather than hand over the tapes, he fired the special prosecutor. th

circuit, he may wind up on the supreme court as the first latino supreme court justice! incredible! next. kennedy. kennedy. kennedy behind the whole thing. biden, leahy, durbin and the rest! next. again, you can see who is in attendance. daschle, reid, and what are they focused on? feinstein, schumer, edwards, durbin, leahy, estrada, got to kill off estrada, the first latino that might be on the supreme court! next. well, you get the picture. and that's what these memos show. they show that the democrat party has hijacked the judicial nomination process over the last 30 years. that their left-wing groups have hijacked the judicial nomination process from the american people, and they may let a justice through here and there who's nominated by a republican, but the fact of the matter is, they are going to crush anybody who they believe might change the balance of power. what are we talking about here? we're talking about republican presidents like donald trump who are nominating people who want to follow the constitution! people who want to adhere to the constitution! now the left ta

you've earned the respect of the supreme court as well. as you know the supreme court has adopted the positions in your opinions no less than 13 times. that's something nobody can argue against. you've offered landmark opinions on the separation of powers, administrative law and national security. you've served as a mentor to dozens of clerks and hundreds of law students, miami and female. and some of whom did not share your philosophy. your student reviews are off the charts, favorable. even by those who may not have completely agreed with your philosophical approaches on some matters. you volunteer in your community. mr. chairman, i ask for order. >> okay. you volunteer in the community. you coach youth basketball. are you the sort of person many of us would like to have as a friend and a colleague. you also apparently like to eat pasta with ketchup. but nobody is perfect. now, this mr. ing politics and this being a supreme court confirmation hearing, my democratic colleagues actually -- i've got to admit, this is my democratic colleague

supreme court. i appreciate that broader point. [yelling] >> my -- my time is expired, chairman. there will be a second round; correct? >> there will be. happy to give you additional minute, hutwo additional interruptions, if you'd like. >> just to make a final point, actually i think this is not an off-shore storm, it has made landfall, when you see polling that shows that 49% of americans think a corporation will get a fairer shot in the united states supreme court than an individual, seven times as many think it is the other way. now, you still have a few to work with who are undecided on that question, but a fact about half the american people already believe corporations will be treated more fairly in the united states supreme court than human beings will, and the alignment of that with the facts that i have shown you about the supreme court's record of 80 partisan decisions, 92% involving big corporate special interests and 100% win rate in those cases, i think we're at a tough place right now

the supreme court adopted his reasoning a remarkable 13 times. a testament to his thoughtful and well reasoned decisions. and a record that few if any other appellate judges can match. again, no one more qualified. for more than a decade, he also taught classes at harvard, yale, georgetown law schools. he is a well respected judge and a well respected professor. and a thought leader among his peers. that's why so many of his former students, his law clerks, his judicial colleagues and legal scholars, by the way, from across the political spectrum have come out in support of his nomination. judge calf nah kavanaugh is guie constitution and by the rule of law. he has said that judge's job is to interpret the law, not to make the law or make policy. i agree. and by the way, as do most of the people we represent. judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench. clearly bret kavanaugh has the right qualifications and a judicial philosophy that is very much in the mainstream. just as important to me is the kind of person you want on the supreme court. i

the supreme court must never, never be viewed as a protestant institution the justices on the supreme court did not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. they do not caucus in separate rooms. if confirmed, to the supreme court, i would be part of a team of 9. committed to deciding cases according to the constitution and laws of the united states. i would always strive to be a team player on the team of 9. throughout my life, i have tried to serve the common good in keeping with my jesuit high school's motto, meant for others. i have spent my career in public service, i have tutored at washington jesuit academy, a rigorous tuition free school for boys for families with low income. i served meals to the homeless with my friend, father john endler. in those works, i keep in mind the message of matthew 25, and try to serve the least fortunate among us. i know that i'll fall short at times, but i always want to do more and do better. for the past seven years, i have coached my daughter's basketball teams. i love coaching. all the girls that i have coached are awesome. a special congratulation

i think the supreme court right now is about the hottest bench that the supreme court has ever been. i think each of the last justices that have been confirmed by this committee have tended to ask more questions than the justice they replaced. so i think he will fit right in to what he referred to as the team of nine, and i think from an advocate's perspective, that's what you want. you want somebody who is going to push you, but is going to push your adversary in the argument and ask the hard questions of both sides, and i think that's what you would get with -- that's what you are already getting with judge kavanaugh on the dc circuit, and i think that's what you would see on the supreme court of the united states. >> senator whitehouse? >> thank you, chairman. mr. dean, i don't know if you've been watching the hearings, but my take on what we've seen is that for a number of very good reasons, including that minnesota law review article in which judge kavanaugh expressed a policy desire that the president be immunized from law enforcement investigation and the kavanaugh comment tha

do >> the supreme court is set again -- i thought the supreme court said. he recited numerous times. >> i have trouble departing from the supreme court precedent. >> you opined about it in e-mails. you just can't say right now what you believe. >> a couple things just a backup. >> "wall street journal," let me put it this way. the supreme court has said for decadespl that institutions of higher education have a compelling interest in student body diversity in the race can be used as a factor. not the only factor, but a factor in admissions of its done so in a way that is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. i know they said it in 2003. the simple question here is do you believe these cases were rightly decided? >> another important precedent to the supreme court. >> average go through this before. do you serve. if you can answer, so you can answer it. do you believe the cases, marbury v. madison. he said brown v. board of education rightly decided. and segregation cases can come before the supreme court. do you believe that these cases, yes or no, do y

and that supreme court.this quote what you chose to do in the speech last year in front of them was to lift up the clarksburg test. when you chose to stay yesterday. it gives me pause in concern if you feel like i have somehow misquoted you any american. what i've read about how they have or haven't been applied. in which justice kennedy himself neglected -- neglected that test. i think it's better at rejecting claims of constitutional rights than it is at accepting them. and i think it's a blunt instrument and i'm concerned that it may reveal an enthusiasm for a test that would permitit the continued exercise of government power in ways that they would frankly blow up all moderate process. a whole range of areas. these are subtle precedent. but those of us that sit trying to decide whether you should be the next justice and take justice kennedy's seat have to ask ourselvesit what your view would be. and in this recent speech i worry that you reveal it you don't share the view of our framers in particular th

the supreme court, this was -- the supreme court in the united states v.richard nixon -- >> isn't it fair to say that executive privilege belongs to the president of the united states, the chief he cexecutive? >>. >> it can belong to the former president in the case of former presidential records. that's one category i want to put on that. >> fair caveat. is the assertion of executive privilege by the president subject to judicial review? >> well, of course, because under the precedent, united states v. richard nixon, said two things. one, the executive privilege is constitutionally rooted. the special prosecutor in this case argued that there was in such thing as executive privilege and the supreme court rejected that argument and held that the executive privilege is rooted in the separation of powers and in article 2. >> the reason i'm asking doesn't have much to do with you. it goes back to a point we were talking about earlier in the hearing, which is that we have received hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents of your record that look like this.

the supreme court must never, never be viewed as a partisan institution, the justices on the supreme court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle, they do not caucus in separate rooms. if confirmed to the supreme court, i would be part of a team of 9, committed to deciding cases according to the constitution and laws of the united. i would always strive to be a team player, on the team of 9. throughout my life i have tried to serve the common good. in keeping with my jesuit high school's motto, meant for others. i have spent my career in public service, i have tutored at washington jesuit academy, a rigorous tuition free school for boys from low income families. at catholic charities i have served meals to the homeless with my friend father john amsler. in those works i keep in mind the message of matthew 25 and try to serve the least fortunate among us. i know that i fall short at times, but i always want to do more and do better. for the past seven years i have coached my daughter's basketball team. i love coaching! all of the girls that i have coached are awesome! and a special

it made it to the supreme court. the claimed right was the right of parents to direct the upbringing of children by sending them to a private or parochial school and the supreme court affirmed and recognized that right under the united states constitution. >> what is -- there's a good example, judge and again i apologize for interrupting but we're dealing here with values, are we not? like the rule of law or privacy or equal opportunity or personal responsibili responsibility. how do you determine what values all americans cherish? how do nine people determine what values all americans cherish enough to read into or to discover result of the superior intellect of those nine individuals is a part of the constitution? and has been there for a long time, but most of us couldn't see it except the nine justices. >> well, i don't think that's the conception of the judicial role that the supreme court has articulated. >> i agree, but that's the perception some people have and perception is important in appreciation of gover

the supreme court -- this was -- the supreme court in the united states v.richard nixon -- >> isn't it fair to say that executive privilege belongs to the president of the united states, the chief executive? >> yeah, it can also belong to the former president in the case of former presidential records. that's one caveat that i want to put on that. >> fair caveat. is the assertion of executive privilege by the president subject to usually review? >> well, of course, because united states -- under the precedent, united states v. richard nixon, said two things. it said one, the executive privilege is constitutionally rooted. the special prosecutor in that case argued that actually there was no such thing as executive privilege. and the supreme court rejected that argument and held that the executive privilege is rooted in the separation of powers and in article ii but secondly -- >> the reason i'm asking doesn't have much to do with you. it goes back to a point that we were talking about earlier in the hearing, which is that we have received hundreds and hundre

at a circuit court judge which was then reviewed by the supreme court. the supreme court adopted positions advanced by his opinions at least 13 times and overruled him only once. on the d.c. circuit court, democratic-appointed skwrublgs were just as -- judges r just as likely to join judge kavanaugh's majority opinions in full as his republican appointed colleagues about 88% of the traoeupl. -- time. two of president obama's solicitor generals praised judge kavanaugh saying he is incredibly brilliant -- he's an incredibly brilliant, careful person who is, quote, very gracious on the bench and off. one says, quote, he carries out all phases of his responsibilities as a judge in the way you'd want, in an exemplary way. so that said, judge kavanaugh is acknowledged as being highly qualified. and even though they're on the opposite side of the aisle, these legal figures respect judge kavanaugh's qualifications and depth of experience. lisa blatt who worked in the attorney general's office during the clinton, bush and obama administration said sometimes a sup

precedence of the supreme court. i don't get to pick and choose which supreme court precedents i get to follow. i follow them all. and so in the second amendment context, the supreme court in the heller decision written by justice scalia had a held that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms. and then in explaining what that meant and what exceptions would be allowed to that right, justice scalia's opinion in part three went through this does not mean that there is no gun regulation permissible. so that was an important part of the opinion, part three of the supreme court's opinion, where it pre-identified a number of exceptions that would be allowed. felony possession laws, conceal carry, laws possession of the mentally ill, possession of guns in schools, possession in certain kinds of buildings. he pre-identified that. as to the weapons, the way i understood what he said there and what was said in the mcdonald case later was that dangerous and unusual weapons could be prohibited. and what he referred t

supreme court. citizens united is a good example of that, senator. >> and in a case called emily's list versus fec you wrote that disclosure requirements trigger rights that receive less first amendment protection, close quote, than speech prohibitions, other types of speech prohibitions. >> and i think that followed from supreme court law and is consistent, i believe, with subsequent supreme court law. of course the subsequent supreme court law controls. >> do you have a favorite among the federalist papers? >> -- i'm not asking you to choose from eliza and -- >> no, that's right. yes. so i like a lot of federalist papers. federal 78, of course, the independent judiciary, the role of the judiciary. federali federalist 69, which says the presidency is not a monarchy is very important when hamilton explains all the ways that the presidency is not a monarchy in our constitutional system. i think that's very important. federalist 10, which talks about factions in america and explains that having the se

the supreme court adopted his reasoning a remarkable 13 times. a testament to his thoughtful and well reasoned decisions. and a record that few if any other appellate judges can match. again, no one more qualified. for more than a decade, he also taught classes at harvard, yale, georgetown law schools. he is a well respected judge and a well respected professor. and a thought leader among his peers. that's why so many of his former students, his law clerks, his judicial colleagues and legal scholars, by the way, from across the political spectrum have come out in support of his nomination. judge calf nah kavanaugh is guie constitution and by the rule of law. he has said that judge's job is to interpret the law, not to make the law or make policy. i agree. and by the way, as do most of the people we represent. judges shouldn't be legislating from the bench. clearly bret kavanaugh has the right qualifications and a judicial philosophy that is very much in the mainstream. just as important to me is the kind of person you want on the supreme court. i

supreme court is a guarantor of our liberties and our republic. view i would argue are we taking the sea. . unimpeachable integrity. only those who believe that truth is more important than party. only those whoit are committed o upholding the rights of all americans, not just those in power. as a you know, as transcribed ad vermont marble above the courts interest are the words equal, equal justice under law. for the millions of americans fearful that they are on the of losing their rights, that aspiration has never been more important than it is today. frankly, as amended at the supreme court bar andnd as a united states senator, i feel it's never been more at risk. thank you. >> before i call on senator cornyn, how ridiculous it is to say that we don't have the records that it takes to determine this person qualified to be on the supreme court with all the documents we have at up to more than we've had in the five supreme court nominees. how do we make those decisions for the other five? mr. chairman? if you're not giving the whole picture, 90%

>> as interpreted by the, you know, you follow precedent of the supreme court, if the supreme court upheld something you still work -- >> you took an oath and engine gauge in public service, you believe that it was your job to act in compliance with the constitution but you also fully utilized the tools available to the independent counsel, right, you were part of a team that thought a subpoena against president clinton for evidence for dna evidence, yes? >> can i get 30 seconds? >> i think this is a yes or no question. i'm down to 2 minutes. >> can i get 30 seconds. >> if it's your last 30 seconds. >> okay, i want to emphasize that the system in place now is something that i repeatedly and expressly said is consistent with traditions in 1999 georgetown law journal article and special counsel system i've said is part of our tradition, that is the system in place, you're talking about something that has not been in place for 20 years. >> that's right, independent counsel structure, that hasn't been in place for 20 years, my core concern first that you were happily using tools after finding

you refer to it as existing supreme court precedent, not supreme court precedent, "existing supreme court precedent." now, i don't refer, i don't recall seeing a judge refer to existing supreme court precedent in other decisions, certainly not commonly, unless they're opening the possibility of overturning that precedent. it's a little bit like somebody introducing his wife to you as my current wife. you might not expect that wife to be around for all that long. my current wife, existing supreme courts precedent, and throughout your opinion you're careful never to say that the constitution protects the right to choose. you can see that the parties have "assumed for purposes of this case" that the behalf has a right to end her pregnancy, but not that she actually has that right. you write "as a lower court, our job is to follow the law as it is, not as we might wish it to be. >> well, i have to interrupt, senator, because i was referring to the parental consent cases as well, which i talked about at some length there, and my my disagreement with the other judge was that i thought i was as

supreme court.>> senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge kavanaugh, welcome to you and your family and friends. i'm amazed at the poker faces i have seen on the front row during all of this pandemonium, unlike anything i have seen before in a confirmation hearing. in my view, it's not because your opponents don't know enough about you, it's because they do know all they need to know, apparently, to oppose your nomination. and even before you had a chance to answer our questions, including their questions, many of them have made up their minds, but the american people have not been introduced to you before. this is an opportunity for all of us to gauge in a question and answer format that will hopefully illuminate why it is so important to have judges who actually are tethered to the text of the laws passed by congress, signed by the president, as well as the s constitution of the united states. the senate judiciary committee undertakes few important tasks than the one before us today. last

justice -- supreme court justice? the answer is, it speaks directly to his humanity. judge kavanaugh cares. he is far from being an idealogue. he seekeds to understand before -- seeks to understand before offering an opinion. judge kavanaugh is a tremendous son, friend, husband and father. he's honest, empathetic and intellectually curious. that's the potential -- the person i know. over the course of my life, i have found the true test of a friendship is when support for a friend is, indeed, inconvenient. for me, from the perspective of a lifelong democrat, it is inconvenient to sport judge kavanaugh, especially during this time of unprecedented partisan divide and polarization among americans. but i know it is the right thing to do. as an american, i'm quite concerned about the attacks on our esteemed institutions like the judiciary. my expectation of any judicial nominee i support, especially when it is for the supreme court, is that he or she possess a powerful sense of fairness and impartiality. as an african-ame

supreme court courtroom. and i believe that no sitting justice has played regularly there since justice thomas many years ago when he was a much younger justice. if you are confirmed, do you intend to break that tradition and return to having a justice play on the highest court in the land? >> well, i do if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed. justice thomas did, at some point, get injured, so i hope that precedent is not one that i would follow, but if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, yes indeed, senator. >> excellent. i'm very glad to hear it. >> before i call on senator klobuchar, there's a couple things. one, i became aware of the fact that a lot of the committee confidential material that's been requested, some of the requests we got were already public, so somebody's not doing a very good homework if they're asking us for committee confidential stuff to be disclosed th disclosed that's already available to the public. then i want to ask you, judge kavanaugh, you testified in 2004 that you were not

the supreme court has unanimously reaffirmed that the supreme court agreed with that in a famous case called myers written by in the 20th century by former president chief justice and today supreme court takes very seriously. and so judge kavanaugh was confronted with the decision of 1709, the cabinet officers fire at will and have all these independent agencies and securities and exchange commission, the federal communications commission whose members are removable will only for a good cause and they know, but i'm not going to talk about it. but so how are we going to take seriously the founding that also take seriously the 20th century with the rise of independent agencies that have been affirmed again and again by the supreme court and i thought judge kavanaugh came up with a beautiful census, founding first principles and respect for modern understandings and institutions. and i do predict that the supreme court's when the case finally goes up will perhaps embrace something very similar to that approach and he'll fit in very well with john roberts on one side, maybe elena kagan wi

supreme court.udge. before i begin, i would want to give you, judge, an opportunity to introduce your family. >> thank you, mr. chairman and senator feinstein. and members of the committee. i'm honored to be here today with my family. my wife, ashley, proud west textian, graduate of abilene cooper high school. the town manager of our local community where we live. our daughters margaret and liza. thank the committee for arranging a day off from school today. my mom and dad, martha and ed kavanaugh. my aunt and uncle, nancy and mark murphy. and my first cousins rosie and elizabeth murphy. i'm very honored to be here, honored to have my family here. i'm here because of them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we are delighted to have your family here. before i make my opening remarks i want to set out the ground rules for the hearing. i want everyone to watch the hearing without obstruction. if people stand up and block the view of those behind them or speak out of turn it is not fair or considerate to other

and they appealed to the supreme court, and the supreme court did not take the case. justice thomas issued with justice alito concurring a rather pointed dissent, saying they should take it. if i look at your cases on standing, you have suggested the supreme court should look at, perhaps, broadening, and correct me if i am putting words in your mouth, broadening its definition of standing in a way that, when you have a clear injury, take the case, for they have a right to their day in court. >> yeah, that was in one pocket of standing jurisprudence, so-called zone of interest standing. the supreme court subsequently did narrow the restraints imposed on standing based on zone of interest standing. more broadly, i think standing jurisprudence, i have not suggested more generally expanding standing beyond what the supreme court has said, but i think it can be difficult to apply to particular cases. who is an injured party in a particular case? what kinds of injury are good enough to make a case for controversy for purposes of article three of the constitution, to bring i

and you've earned the respect of the supreme court as well. as you know, the supreme court has adopted the positions in your opinions no less than 13 times. that's something nobody can really argue against. you've offered landmark opinions on the separation of powers, administrative law, national security. you served as a mentor to dozens of clerks and hundreds of law students, male and female, and some of whom did not share your philosophy. your student reviews are off the charts favorable, even by those who may not have completely agreed with your fill lovecal approaches on some matter. you volunteer in your community, mr. chairman, you ask for order. you're the sort of person many of us would like to have as a friend and colleague. you also apparently like to eat pasta with ketchup, but nobody's perfect. now this being politics and this being -- this being a supreme court confirmation hearing, my democratic colleagues actual actually -- [ shouting ] >> i've got to admit -- my democratic colleagues can admit that you're actually a good judge

just as important to me is the kind of person you want on the supreme court. i have known brett not so much as a legal scholar or a judge or a professor but as a friend, a father, and a husband. he is thoughtful and compassionate. and someone who has a big heart. and the humility to >> the humility to listen. truth this confirmation hearing, i hope the american people will get to know the rick kavanaugh i've had the privilege of knowing. a couple of days after he was announced brett came to my office to discuss his confirmation. he went from our meeting to serve the homeless at his church, a regular occurrence long scheduled, scheduled long before his nomination. i only found out about it because that night someone recognized him and took a photo that got tweeted. and it was a photo of him in a baseball cap in this soup kitchen. it's classic brett that he didn't tell me this is where he was going after meeting with me. to my colleagues, i know the man. he does things because it's the right thing to do. brett is also involved as some of you in his daughter's sp

the argument rewrites supreme court precedent. and if adopted, we believe would require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient support network when making her decision. even in cases where she has gone to court. this reason, we believe, i believe, demonstrates that you are willing to disregard precedent. and if that's the case, because just saying something settled law, it really is law. a woman's right to choose is about protecting the most personal decisions we make from government intrusion. roe is one in a series of cases that upheld an individual's right to decide who to marry. it's not the governor's -- government's right. where to send your children to school, the government can't get involved. what kind of medical care you can receive at the end of life as well as whether and when to have a family. and i deeply believe that all these cases serve as a bullwork of privacy rights to protect all americans from overinvolvement of the government in their lives. and to me, that's extraordinarily important. nex

supreme court courtroom. and i believe that no sitting justice has played regularly there since justice thomas many years ago when he was a much younger justice. if you are confirmed, do you intend to break that tradition and return to having a justice play on the highest court in the land? >> well, i do if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed. justice thomas did, at some point, get injured, so i hope that precedent is not one that i would follow, but if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, yes indeed, senator. >> excellent. i'm very glad to hear it. >> before i call on senator klobuchar, there's a couple things. one, i became aware of the fact that a lot of the committee confidential material that's been requested, some of the requests we got were already public, so somebody's not doing a very good homework if they're asking us for committee confidential stuff to be disclosed th disclosed that's already available to the public. then i want to ask you, judge kavanaugh, you testified in 2004 that you were not

supreme court. welcome again, judge. , i would want to give you, judge, an opportunity to introduce your family. judge kavanaugh: thank you, mr. chairman and senator feinstein -- sen. grassley: push the red button is it is not on. judge kavanaugh: thank you chairman and members of the committee. i am honored today to be here with my wife ashley, proud west texan, graduate of abilene cooper high school, now the town manager of our local community where we live, our daughters margaret and liza. i thank the committee for arranging a day off from school today. [laughter] judge kavanaugh: my mom and dad, martha and ed kavanaugh, my aunt and uncle, nancy and mark murphy, and my first cousins rosie and elizabeth murphy. , am very honored to be here honored to have my family here. i am here because of them. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. grassley: we are delighted to have your family here. before i make my opening remarks, i want to set out the ground rules for the hearing. i want everyone to be able to watc

the court in heller, the supreme court, upheld -- or struck down a d.c. ban on handguns, mostly which are semiautomatic. >> let me interrupt you because i think we're on totally different wavelengths. i'm talking about your statement on common use, as common use being a justification, and assault weapons are not in common use. >> in justice scalia's opinion, to use that phrase, i think the next sentence of the opinion talked about dangerous and unusual weapons, and the court in heller itself, the supreme court, struck down a d.c. ban on handguns. now, most handguns are semiautomatic. that's something that not everyone appreciates. most handguns are semiautomatic. the question came before us of semiautomatic rifles, and the question was, can you distinguish, as a matter of precedent -- again, this is all about presence dent fcedent for. i'm trying to read what the supreme court says, and if you read the mcdonald case, i concluded that it could not be distinguished as a rule of law semiautomatic handguns. and semiautomatic rifles are widely possessed in the

but the supreme court in heller struck down the d.c. ban on handguns most of which are semi automatic. >> let me interrupt you.dg i think we're on on totally different wavelength i'm talking about your statement on common use as a justification and assault weapons are not in common use. >> with justice scalia's opinion that use that phrase the next sentence talks about dangerous and unusual weapons. . . . . semiautomatic rifles are widely processed in the united states. there are millions and millions and millions of semiautomaticth rifles that are possessed, so that seems to fit common units and being a dangerous and unusual laughing. i was the the basis of my dissent. in a nutshell, the basis of my dissent was i was trying to follows her clean carefully to supreme court precedent. >> you are saying the numbers determine common use? common use is an activity. it is not common storage orse possession. it is used. so what you said was that these weapons are commonly used. they are not. >> fairway the possessed in the united states, senat

they enact a law, the supreme court strikes it down.they enact a law, the supreme court strikes it down. so what do you do? roosevelt takes a book from the civil war and says, i will tell you what we will do. we will add some justices to the supreme court, and when they get a case, i will have a majority and we will have the answer we wanted and everybody can rest peacefully, only this time it did not go down so well in the country. to six monthve struggle over this that is hard to imagine. the clintontoday is impeachment, where the country is mesmerized. people giving speeches on the radio, fighting about it at their pta meetings, do we buy into this idea of packing the ?ourt or don't we ultimately, the american people reject the idea of controlling after the but only court is switched and signaled that will not interfere with the new deal anymore. that brings us into the world we all live in today, which is generally speaking we respect the supreme court. we are willing to follow what the justices say i'm a but only so long as they do

of the role of the supreme court in american life now. our political commentary talks about the supreme court like they are people wearing red and blue jerseys. that's a really dangerous thing and by the way, if they have red and blue, i would welcome my colleagues to introduce the legislation that ends lifetime tenure for the judiciary. because if they are just politicians, then the people should have power and they shouldn't have lifetime appointments. so until you introduce that legislation, i don't believe you really want the supreme court to be a politicized body. that's the way we constantly talk about it now. we can and should do better than this. it's predictable that every concan firmation hearing now is going to be overblown politicized circus cuss. it's because we have accepted a new theory about how our three branches of government should work and in particular how the judiciary should work. what supreme court confirmation hearings should be about is an opportunity to go back and do schoolhouse rock civics for our kids. we sho

it made it to the supreme court. the claimed right was the right of parents to direct the upbringing of children by sending them to a private or parochial school and the supreme court affirmed and recognized that right under the united states constitution. >> what is -- there's a good example, judge and again i apologize for interrupting but we're dealing here with values, are we not? like the rule of law or privacy or equal opportunity or personal responsibili responsibility. how do you determine what values all americans cherish? how do nine people determine what values all americans cherish enough to read into or to discover result of the superior intellect of those nine individuals is a part of the constitution? and has been there for a long time, but most of us couldn't see it except the nine justices. >> well, i don't think that's the conception of the judicial role that the supreme court has articulated. >> i agree, but that's the perception some people have and perception is important in appreciation of gover

not supreme court precedent, existing supreme court precedent.ow, i don't refer, i don't recall seeing a judge refer to existing supreme court precedent in other decisions, certainly not commonly. unless they're opening the possibility of overturning that precedent. it's a little bit like somebody introducing his wife to you as my current wife. you might not expect that wife to be around for all that long. my current wife, existing supreme court precedent. and throughout your opinion, you're careful to never say that the constitution protects the right to choose. you can see that the parties have, quote, assumed for purposes of this case, end quote, that the plaintiff has a right to end her pregnancy. but not that she actually has that right. you write, quote: as a lower court, our job is to follow the law as it is, not as we might wish it to be. >> well, there i have to interrupt, senator, because i was referring to the parental consent cases as well, which i talked about at some length there. and my disagreement with the other judge was that i

a supreme courtjustice, that he feels the process should continue. they have to balance that, as well, with the emotional testimony of christine blasey ford, who gave a real sense of what this attack, or this alleged attack, had done to her over the last three or four mac decades. we knew what she was going to say. it had been written down. we have seen that opening statement. but to hear it being spoken in hushed senate room was quite a different experience, and certainly doctor blasey ford gave testimony which has to be considered by all inside the senate, both democrats and republicans. chris, it was bruising for both parties involved. when it comes down to what the decision is, is it basically who they believe, whether it is doctor ford or whether it isjudge whether it is doctor ford or whether it is judge kavanaugh?” whether it is doctor ford or whether it is judge kavanaugh? i think politics plays into it as well. the truth is, i suspect, after having such powerful testimony from both sides, that there will be people who will simply not shift t

i put it out with the supreme court said about banning supreme -- machine guns. i have said that in my speech in 2015. the concept is as you know, well established in the supreme court precedent. >> judge kavanaugh , i was at sandy hook the afternoon of that massacre. i don't know whether you have been at these kind of things. i don't know whether you have seen the pictures of what assault weapons can do. they were designed for the sole purpose to kill and maim human beings and they are very good at it. the most effective weapons known to man. i would urge you to reconsider. i think the test you are imposing is out of touch with reality of what assault weapons do and i think it reflects a broader forthcoming in the way you are applying law to fact and trying to be an ideological standard rather than the test of the real-world. >> do you care to respond? >> i wanted to thank the senator for sharing that perspective and i thank you for sharing it. i appreciate it and i will take it into account and consider and remember what you said. >> thank you. >> would you car

we need a supreme court to protect our clean air because lives depend on and also a supreme court court to uphold the protections to address climate change my generations future depends on it. for me climate change means life will be even more difficult more dust in the air from forest fires and more mold due to extreme weather and flooding. the next time you have a chance that one up and try to breathe through and see how long you can last. this is what it feels like to suffer through asthma at the supreme court fails to protect clean air that is failing to protect me and millions of other americans please don't confirm someone with a record like judge kavanaugh that can mean more air pollution, more asthma attacks and more premature death for millions of americans unfortunate enough to be afflicted with asthmaem like me thank you for letting me justify. >> thankat you and i thank you mr. chairman and mr. whitehouse and members of the committee i am honored to add my voice in support of judge kavanaugh today working at the solicitor gen.'s office i appeared before him on the d.c. circu

he is confirmed, you can impeach supreme court judges but he is confirmed, you can impeach supreme courtjudgesut that will not happen either. i think the next few days are the crucial days and of course the committee votes in about half an hour course the committee votes in about halfan hourand course the committee votes in about half an hour and it will go to the full senate at the weekend, probably early next week. we are looking at two keira public and is, susan collins from maine and lisa murkowski from alaska and it is a question of which way they go. if they flip, he is finished. he will lose the vote. everyone is looking to them for some sort of decision because they hold, they hold his future in their hands. and motion by richard blumenthal to subpoena mark judge, this man who was a friend of brett kava naugh who judge, this man who was a friend of brett kavanaugh who was indicated in these parties and i think with other women as well, was voted down. the fbi investigation, could that be resurrected and if so by who? fbi investigation, could that be resurrected and if so by wh07m could

the argument rewrites supreme court precedent. and if adopted, we believe would require courts to determine whether a young woman had a sufficient tesupport network when making her decision. even in cases where she has gone to court. this reason we believe, i believe, demonstrates that you are willing to disregard precedent. and if that is the case, because just saying something settled law, a really is not correct law. the impact of overturning roe, is much broader than a woman's right to choose.it is about protecting the most personal decisions that we all make from government intrusion. roe is one in a series of cases that upheld and individuals right to decide who to marry, is not the governments right. where to send your children to school, itthe government cannot get involved. what kind of medical care that you can receive at the end of life. as well is whether and when to have a family. i deeply believe that all aof these cases serve as a worker privacy rights that protect all americans from overinvolvement of the governmen