Footage Information

ABCNEWS VideoSource
0920 KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG CMTE FS1 79 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 4) Full Committee DATE: Friday, September 7, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley AGENDA September 6, 2018 NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CONTINUATION The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States will continue tomorrow, September 7, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. By order of the Chairman. WITNESSES: PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt lake City , UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville , TN PANEL III MAJORITY: Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington , DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley , NY The Honorable Theodore Olson Former Solicitor General Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Washington , DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington , DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven , CT MINORITY: The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville , TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring , MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis , IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York , NY PANEL IV MAJORITY: Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington , DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Foxpoint , WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington , DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles , CA MINORITY: Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland , FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover , PA Download Testimony Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk , ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City , OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington , DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington , DC Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington , VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington , VA MINORITY: Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston , MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington , DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus , OH 9:31:32 AM GRASSLEY >> Good morning, everybody. I welcome you to our fourth and final day of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. Over the last three days the American people heard directly from the judge. He sat through hours and hours and I think my staff calculated 32 and a half hours of our colleagues statements and of course, our colleagues' questioning. I think he made a very compelling case that he's one of the most qualified nominees, if not the most qualified that we've seen for the supreme court of the United States and I have seen, I think, 15 of them. He demonstrated that his 12 9:32:33 AM years of exemplary judicial service on the nation's second highest court uniquely qualifies him for a promotion to the nation's highest court. In fact, on today's first panel, we'll hear from two witnesses from the American bar association, the aba, whose assessment, particularly by Democrat leaders, I like to quote that they refer to it as the gold standard of judiciary -- judicial valuation as rated judge Kavanaugh well qualified to serve on the supreme court. I'm going to tell you a little bit now how today's going to evolve. Each aba witness will have five minutes to make an opening statement, will then have five minute rounds of senators questioning of the panel. We will have three more panels after the aba panel where we will hear from 26 additional 9:33:35 AM witnesses. We will have three more -- oh, 26 additional witnesses, many of these witnesses include the judge's former law clerks, students, friends and associates. They will help make the case that not only is judge Kavanaugh one of the most qualified nominees that we have, judge Kavanaugh is also an exceptional judge, teacher, coach, volunteer and dad and I'm sure we'll hear that. Now, I want to point out, one person that's going to come on a later panel, 'cause he has deep Iowa roots, I'm pleased and proud to hear from professor Adam white, grew up in Dubuque, Iowa, and graduated from university of Iowa, Harvard law school and Adam's parents live in bentondorf, Iowa and he's probably not here 9:34:37 AM yet, but I look forward to meeting Adam and his parents as well. We'll divide the time majority's 13 and minority's 13 witnesses. Each witness has five minutes to make an opening statement and five rounds for senator questioning of each of the three panels. Our first panel today will feature two representatives from the aba standing committee of the federal judiciary, Paul Moxley, and John Tarpley. I would like to have you folks stand now so I can swear you. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing, but the truth so help you god? Before you give your testimony, I know a fine lawyer in des Moines by the name of Mr. Brown, who does a lot of what you're doing and I know he spends a lot of time doing it 9:35:39 AM and takes it very seriously. So did you two folks-- I'm sorry. You do get to make a statement. I apologize. Go ahead, you should make a statement, yes. >> Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any questions for the two panelists, but I want to thank them both for all the hard work the ABA does. Not just on the evacuation of of judge Kavanaugh, but on your evaluation of all of the district and circuit court nominees that come before the committee. I, in particular, pay special attention to the recommendation and for me, speaking personally, it is very important and I want you to know that and I believe I speak for members on my side as well. For decades the American bar has provided an analysis of judicial nominations to provide 9:36:39 AM the senate and the American public with an important assessment of a nominee's qualifications. So, thank you. Is the kind of rating it is is to some extent what colleagues know of colleagues, and I think it's important because we see one side of a person, but the aba sees their professional side and hears about their professional said and I think that's very important. The rain determinetiff, and whether they have the legal confidence competence integrity to be elevated to the federal bench. So, I think it's critically important for the aba to be allowed to follow its process 9:37:40 AM and finish its work before a nominee has a hearing and I know I am, Mr. Chairman, speaking for our side on that point, because this enables the committee to ask questions of the nominee, especially if the aba's evaluation suggests areas of concern in the nominee's record. So, I hope we can return to such a process. Once again, thank you for your hard work and welcome today. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Mr. Moxley, do you want to start for your group? >> Happy to. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and ranking member Feinstein. We are honored to be here today representing our committee and explaining our evaluation of judge Kavanaugh. We gave him the highest rating possible, which is unanimously 9:38:40 AM well-qualified. For over 60 years we have conducted thorough, nonpartisan, non ideological peer review of of nominees to the federal courts. We assess the nominee's integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The standing committee does not propose, endorse, or recommend nominees. We only evaluate the professional qualifications of a nominee to the courts. I'm from Salt Lake City. John Tarpley to my left is from Nashville, Tennessee and in the gallery is Bob trout, and we're also assisted by Pam breshan committee in July when the nomination came in. And to be a nominee to the supreme court one must possess 9:39:40 AM exceptional professional qualifications. As such, our investigations of a nominee is much more extensive than the other federal courts. First, all of the circuit members of the committee, which are 14, participate in the evaluation. Every federal circuit in the country is covered by these 14 people and not just the circuit in which the nominee resides. Second, while the standing committee independently reviews the writings of the nominee, we also commission three reading group. In this instance we have the university of Maryland, the university of Utah, and a profession group. In this group of people were approximately 48 law professors and distinguished practitioners. 9:40:43 AM Members of the reading groups independently evaluated factors, such as the judge's analytical abilities, the clarity of writing, knowledge of the law, application of the law to the facts, expertise and harmonizing a body of law, and the ability to communicate effectively. We contacted and solicited input from almost 500 people who were likely to have knowledge of his qualifications, including federal and state judges, lawyers, and bar representatives. Some of these people were identified in his senate questionnaire, which you're also familiar with. Also, our committee had confidential evaluation performed on judge Kavanaugh in the years 2003, 2005, and 2006 when he was nominated to the 9:41:46 AM D.C. Circuit court. We also, Mr. Tarpley, myself, Mr. Trout, met with the judge for about three and a half hours in early August and since then have talked to him regularly on the telephone, at e-mail exchanges and the like. We concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament and professional competence met the highest standards for appointment to the court. Our rating of unanimously well-qualified reflects the consensus of his peers who have knowledge of his professional qualifications and we reached out to a broad range of legal professionals, including almost 500 people and we conducted about 120 personal interviews. And with that, that concludes my opening statement. >> Mr. Tarpley. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Feinstein and members of the committee. 9:42:47 AM Good morning. I'm John Tarpley as my colleague Paul Moxley reported I am the lead investigator of the investigation of judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the United States supreme court. It's my privilege to be here and it's my privilege to present this testimony on behalf of the committee's evaluation of judge Kavanaugh's professional qualifications. Let me point out at the start, the standing committee did not consider judge Kavanaugh's ideology, his political views, or his political affiliation, it did not solicit information with regard to how judge Kavanaugh might review on specific issues or cases that could come before the united States supreme court. Rather, the aba standing committee's evaluation of judge Kavanaugh was based on a comprehensive, nonpartisan, nonideological peer review of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. In evaluating integrity, the standing committee considers 9:43:48 AM the nominee's character and general reputation in the legal community, his industry, and his diligence. The standing committee found that judge Kavanaugh envoice -- enjoys integrity and outstanding character. It's clear from our interview and conversations that he learned the importance of integrity from a very early age and throughout his life. Importantly, many of the lawyers, judges, and others interviewed praised his integrity. They said thinks integrity is absolutely unquestioned. He is a person of the highest morality and the highest ethics. He is what he seems, very decent, humble, and honest. Another said he always seeks to be fair. He is not result oriented. He wants to do the right thing. On the basis of our comprehensive evaluation 9:44:49 AM process, the standing committee concluded that judge Kavanaugh possesses the integrity for our highest rating, a unanimous well-qualified. Professional competence, this encompasses qualities such as intellectual capacity, judgment, writing, analytical abilities, knowledge of the law and breadth of professional experience. The supreme court must possess each of these exceptional qualities. Judge Kavanaugh's professional come -- competence exceeds these criteria. The one of the reviewers noted his scholarly work, that judge Kavanaugh analyzes the application of the law to the facts of the law and with exceptional clarity and that his opinions are well-organized resulting in clear precedent. Another said judge Kavanaugh is an excellent writer with a flare for making complicated facts very understandable. 9:45:50 AM Given the breadth, diversity and strength of the positive feedback 0 we received from judges and lawyers from all parts of the profession, the committee would have been hard-pressed to come to any conclusion other than that judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated exceptional professional competence. Those with whom he has worked and those who have been involved in cases over which he has presided have applauded his intellectual acumen, his thoughtful discernment and his written clarity. As a result the aba standing committee has determined that judge Kavanaugh has competence to be well-qualified. In addition to temperament, aba considers the nominees compassion, open mindedness, courteousness, patience and freedom from bias. Lawyers and judges overwhelmingly praised judge Kavanaugh's judicial temperament. They said among other things, 9:46:51 AM he is very straightforward. He maintains an open mind about all things. He is an affable nice person. He is easy to get along with and even has a good sense of humor. Can you imagine that? A judge with a good sense of humor? He is really a decent person. His temperament is terrific. He is thoughtful, fair-minded, always fair-minded in his questions to counsel. Thus our highest rating in this category. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I note that the aba standing committee shares the goal of your committee, to assure a qualified and independent judiciary for the American people. On behalf of the aba's more than 400,000 members from one end of the country to the other, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present this statement explaining our evaluation. We are a very diverse group of lawyers and we agreed unanimously that judge 9:47:51 AM Kavanaugh meets our high standards and rated him as unanimously well-qualified to serve as an associate justice on the United States supreme court. Thank you again for this opportunity and thank you for your Servi >> Questions of you, I'm going to start with senator graham, but before I do that, I just want to thank you not only for your testimony, but you and your colleagues that did this review. We thank you very much for that part of your public service and your dedication to the rule of law. Senator graham and then senator Feinstein. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was an incredible explanation and overview of the well-lived life, do you agree with that? >> Absolutely. >> It sounds like a great judge, but a lousy politician. He has no chance in my business. What I would like to do is thank you because very seldom do we have moments like this in 9:48:53 AM modern politics where you pick people outside the realm of politics to give us some insight about a person like you have done. Often, not often, but sometimes we disagree with the aba's rating, from a Republican point of view. I'm glad you do what you do. I want it to continue. When you reach conclusion that I disagree with, it won't be because I don't respect your opinion. From this committee's point of view, I think this is a valuable input. Some of us think you may be more left than right at times as an association, but that doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is the quality of your work and I think you do the country a great service. So, just to sum up, intellect, a-plus? >> Absolutely. >> Do you agree with that, Mr. Moxley. >> Yes. >> Integrity a-plus? >> A-plus-plus. >> Again, we have nothing in common. I don't, with judge Kavanaugh as far as a-plus-plus. 9:49:55 AM I think I've got integrity, but not putting myself in the category of this man in terms of his ability to impress his peers. Would you say he's mainstream in terms of being a judge? >> Absolutely, he's at the top of the stream. >> Have you ever heard the ward radical used when it comes to judge Kavanaugh. >> Not in all the evaluations that we've done. We've communicated with more than a hundred lawyers and judges who work with him on a regular basis. >> If he's confirmed, do you think the court will be in good hands if he's a member of it? >> We gave us our unanimously well-qualified rating. Our highest rating, absolutely. >> Do you agree, Mr. Moxley? >> Absolutely. >> Either one of you running for president? >> Oh, no. >> I'll save that job for you, senator. Didn't work out. [Laughter] >> Senator Feinstein. >> I have no questions, except to say that I think the report 9:50:57 AM in writing is very helpful. I think the individual's names that are down here who have participated in different aspects of it is very helpful. I think we have something that becomes part of the standing record. >> Yes. >> And there has been some controversy about the aba, as you probably know, and I think the way to really solve it are reports like this, which are thorough and contemplative and helpful. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> We understood we need to make a motion for the admission of the statement as well? >> I just think it's automatically because we always say you have five minutes and a longer written statement, would be included. Senator Cruz, go ahead, senator Cruz. >> I don't have any questions, but I want to briefly enter into the record-- >> I should say that we do all of this without objection. I don't hear any objection so 9:51:57 AM the report is received. Go ahead. >> I want to briefly enter into the record a letter from the solicitors general of 12 states, including the state of Texas. These sg's have written in their personal capacities to express our strong support for the confirmation of judge Brett Kavanaugh. They write, quote, the solicitor general serves as the state's chief appellate lit gator thus we represent our states in the U.S. Supreme court, carefully study the work of the court and have a keen appreciation for the role that the court plays in safeguarding the rule of law, including vital federalism and separation of powers principles. In our view, judge Kavanaugh would make an outstanding addition to the nation's highest court. Throughout his distinguished career, judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated unwavering commitment preserving the rule of law and advancing the legal profession. I'd like to entered into the record. >> Without objection it will be received. Senator coons. >> Let me just ask both of you 9:52:58 AM one question if I might. Would it concern you if we proceeded to consider a nominee for a judicial post without taking into account the aba's advice? >> Yes. I'll just add to that, Paul knows that I'm the wordy one of this duo, but I will add to that, yes, I think it is-- it's an incremental part of the process. It's an important part. I'm a lawyer. I'm really interested in the kinds of judges that we have. All of our 410,000 members bring a unique perspective to this process. Our individual committee members bring a unique serious perspective to the process. Its valuable work we believe we do and we think it's important to the process. >> What I would add to that is 9:54:00 AM that the thing that's hard to get your mind around is that you have practitioners from a particular district or circuit, and they're well-known to the courts, and you call the judges in your district or the lawyers in your district, they're going to be-- because they know you, they're going to be more honest and candid with you and since it's confidential. Part of our rule is that if someone brings up negative information about a nominee, unless we take that information back to the nominee for them to rebut it, we don't use it, but it gives the work that we do more authenticity, at least in our minds it does. And obviously, we're doing this on a pro Bono basis, and we he think it's important or we wouldn't be doing it. >> Thank you. >> We're interested in having good courts and we represent everyday people who are 9:55:00 AM dependent on the courts. >> I consult and rely on the aba ratings when I'm considering district court, circuit court and obviously supreme court nominations. I appreciate your input both on justice Kavanaugh, but this is input that I look for every time we're doing a confirmation hearing and I think it's valuable and ought to be part of a regular process. I appreciate you appearing before us today. >> Thank you. >> Senator? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I didn't have a question, but now I do. I, too, appreciate deeply the work that the aba does and ratings and reviews that it gives on all of our candidates. To me, it's not the question that this committee has been struggling with. The question is whether the aba or anybody for that matter would be given a back ball to prohibit or ban a candidate from being considered by this committee if it doesn't give it its approval. What are your thoughts on that? >> Incidentally, one of your 9:56:03 AM fellows from Idaho, chair of this committee, Kim Hopkins. >> A great attorney, great friend. >> Great lawyer and great man. I don't think that-- we only see our part of the ball and what we're familiar with is the confidence of nominees, their integrity and their judicial temperament. You may have other considerations that aren't on our mind. And I don't think we black ball them, we just give them our recommendations. >> Mr. Tarpley? >> I agree with that. >> Thank you very much. And thank you for your testimony here today. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Senator Blumenthal. >> Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to join in thanking you for your excellent work, and the values that you uphold in this work, the highest tra positions of power profession, which is advocacy for people regardless of their station in life, their status, their 9:57:04 AM background, their race or religion. And for that kind of advocacy to work, we need judicial Independence and I want to thank you for making that a specific criterion in your report, and you've remarked that you believe that judge Kavanaugh would uphold judicial Independence. I hope that you join me in the very, very strong feeling that attacks by public officials, and I'm not going to mince words, president of the united States on our independent judiciary, are a disservice to judicial Independence and the integrity of our judicial system. >> I can respond quickly on that one. The aba feels very strongly that a fair and independent 9:58:06 AM judiciary is a linchpin of our society. The founding fathers set it up like that. It's survived all of these hundreds of years, and we feel very strongly about the fair and independent judiciary. >> What I would add to that is that a federal district court and declare an act, an executive order is unconstitutional, enter injunctions. That's also true for legislative bills, and that's an integral part of our legal system that federalism and the fact that each branch of government is co-equal. . >> But, attacks on the courts that undermine the faith and confidence of the public in the credibility of our courts are a real blow to judicial Independence, are they not? >> I don't disagree with that. >> I want to just note for the record that both of our guests 9:59:08 AM seem to be in agreement with that proposition and I thank you very mu >> Senator Kennedy. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Do you have colleagues in the audience who worked with you on this effort? >> Certainly. We mentioned Bob trout a distinguished lawyer here in the district of Columbia, just immediately behind us, who was our local person on the ground who did a tremendous amount of work and Denise cardman, American bar association, proud of both of them. >> Mr. Chairman, with your permission may I ask them to stand? >> Yes, would you, please? >> I want to thank you for your hard work and your input. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for being here. >> Senator Whitehouse, do you have a question? 10:00:08 AM >> Sure. Gentlemen, your evaluation of the nominee related to his qualifications and produced a conclusion that he was well qualified. ... Patterns in his decisions on the court. >> We look at a number of decisions. **** >> I want to just note for the record that both of our guests seem to be in agreement with that proposition and I thank you very mu >> Senator Kennedy. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Do you have colleagues in the audience who worked with you on this effort? >> Certainly. We mentioned Bob trout a distinguished lawyer here in the district of Columbia, just immediately behind us, who was our local person on the ground who did a tremendous amount of work and Denise cardman, American bar association, proud of both of them. >> Mr. Chairman, with your permission may I ask them to stand? >> Yes, would you, please? >> I want to thank you for your hard work and your input. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for being here. 10:00:04 AM >> Senator Whitehouse, do you have a question? >> Sure. Gentlemen, your evaluation of the nominee related to his qualifications and produced a conclusion that he was well qualified. ... Patterns in his decisions on the court. >> We look at a number of decisions. Our reading group examined every decision that he rendered. 10:01:06 AM They read many of his writings. To be candid, I did not see a pattern in his decisions. If there is a pattern to the decision, it's what we saw was an allegiance to the law, a dedication to look at the facts of each particular case and applying the law to the facts of that case, and the faithfulness to precedent. >> Did you make any effort to cross-reference who the parties are amity, were in these cases in that review? >> I'll answer that, sorry. I'm not sure if you were here during the beginning part of my remarks. >> I I wasn't. >> But we had three different reading groups who participate in this evaluation and there were two different law schools 10:02:07 AM that participated, university of Utah and university of Maryland. And then we a practitioners group, and this consists of 48 people who broke the laws in different areas and gave us a report on the opinion. >> Did it take into account what amity, for instance, were appearing before the court? >> That was a part of the record in every case. >> Obviously but was that part of your analysis. >> We did not look into the parties were to -- >> Who the parties were. >> Was when the cases was written was considered as to the parties were as well as all the amicus care were. >> But a look at a pattern there was no cross-referencing between the sages and who parties were? >> Don't think so. >> Okay. Just wanted to check. 10:03:09 AM >> The reason I ask that question, as we should earlier when certain parties come before the D.C. Circuit, and the key who attended associate with and funded by very powerful, very wealthy right-wing interests, they seem to have a better than 90% win rate in front of this particular judge. And in no basis he makes decisions based on on the quality of the legal work and argument before him in which case it seems these particular seemed a very superhuman lawyering going the way because I win rate above 90% to to meet is a bit of signal that there may be something else going on to pursue since you never look at that underlying statistic presumably you to know conclusions about it. >> That's correct. It would be helpful to the senator we could have the reading groups look at that 10:04:11 AM particular question. >> Okay. I don't know that with time but I will consider that. I'll get back to you. >> Thank you, senator. >> I guess all my colleagues have asked the question to want to ask so we thank you and will call the second panel. Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. >> We will wait just a minute while people get the right names appear and then will have the second panel. 10:05:21 AM [Inaudible conversations] [Inaudible conversations] >> Indicated the audience with three more panels where we will hear twice six additional witnesses. Many of these witnesses include judge Kavanaugh's former law clerks, , students, friends and sources. Our next panel includes the following ten witnesses. Five for the majority, and five for the minority. We have congressman Richmond, Mr. Macleod, Ms. Garza, Jerry Weintraub, Olson, Ms. Baker, professor Marie and professor 10:06:27 AM Marr. I would ask if you would stand -- I should've said this before you sat down, I'm sorry. [Witnesses were sworn in] >> Thank you for your affirmation. Now, when the congressman comes this will be his introduction. Cedric Richmond is U.S. Representative second district Louisiana, Carly serves as chairman of the congressional black caucus. Look Macleod shows as law clerk for judge Kavanaugh, 13 and 14 years. I mean, 2013-2014. He also served as law clerk for Niemeyer, U.S. Court of appeals, forth. Justice Sotomayor, supreme court, and he's an associate at Williamson and call it. 10:07:28 AM Rochelle Garza serves as managing attorney at Garza and Barcelona located in Brownsville, Texas. Louisa Gary is a teacher at friends academy, locust valley New York. She is known judge Kavanaugh for 35 years. Ms. Weintraub is an advocate specialist at the association university centers on disabilities, silver springs Maryland. She praises served as a fellow in center Bob Casey's office. Ted Olson is a partner of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. He served as -- 2001-2004 and is an assistant attorney general in charge of the office of in charge of the office of legal counsel 1981-84. He is argued more than 60 cases before the supreme court. Alicia baker is a pastor of a free methodist church in Indiana. Senior associate, she praises 10:08:28 AM served as auditor for chief justice Roberts and judge Garland on the D.C. Circuit. She is a student of judge Kavanaugh's Harvard law school. Professor Marie, professor of law at New York university law. She previously served as a law professor university California Berkeley professor Amar is a professor of law legal site at eou university where he teaches constitutional law and both Yale college in yellow school. Graduate from Yale law school the professor serve as a law clerk to then judge Breyer on youth court of appeals first circuit. The professor taught judge Kavanaugh when he was a student at Yale law school. So we will start with, Mr. Macleod. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking member find second lives of the committee. I wanted to speak today about my former boss and my current friend and mentor judge 10:09:29 AM Kavanaugh. I have the producer is one of his law clerks from 2013-2014. I worked closely with the judge day in and day after helping them prepare for argument and draft opinions. Eyewitness or send the judge's approach deciding cases large and small. What I saw -- judge Kaplan would make a supreme court justice. Judge Kavanaugh is a fair-minded and independent jurist regrows of the parties to the case or the issues being litigated. Judge Kavanaugh worked hard to understand every argument and perspective. It was another opinion to read, another piece of the record,, another angle to explore. That was true when a case trundle legal issues the judge and will. He never look for an easy answer or send it considered all the above the point. He pushed himself to master every aspect in the cases he worked on and he expected his clerks to do the same. To be sure judge Kavanaugh and I did not always see eye to eye on what the long record but the judge did not want clerks reflectively agreed with them or never offered a contrary opinion. Just opposite. Judge Kavanaugh has made a point 10:10:29 AM it's running itself with a diverse group, ideologically, racially and from backwards. Backgrounds. So we can better understand all sides of a given issue. I can recall spending hours with my fellow clerks gathered around the judges desk, some phrase of us would assent the precedent. They believe the opinions that judge Kavanaugh produced reflected his careful consideration of and respect for use of the his own. When we disagree I always knew judge Kavanaugh had come to his position honestly based on a rigorous analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the arguments before. There was no hidden agenda or partisan ax to grind, just belong. Always the law. These qualities have earned judge Kavanaugh a sterling reputation. Judge Kavanaugh has shown himself to be a leader when it comes to his work outside of Chavers. I admire judge Kavanaugh's effort to those who are underrepresented in the legal profession, he rightly speaks to diverse loss groups association. The judge mentors for minority 10:11:31 AM students he teaches helping them become future leaders within the law. Judge Kavanaugh's committed to promoting the careers of minority attorney is apparent from his own clerk hiring. This free law clerks 13 are racial minorities including five African Americans. These percentages nearly unheard of amongst his peers. Minutes judges Monday law clerks have gone to court for the supreme court, something that still all too and, in these days. I am fortunate count myself among them but I would not apply for the position at it again for the the support and encouragement of judge Kavanaugh. Again and again during the year I worked for judge Kavanaugh should himself to be a model of judicial excellence. Even more than his intelligence and diligence it is his character, , his fundamental decency and kindness that inspired me then and now despite being one of both prominent judges of his generation judge Kavanaugh remains humble and gracious. He is unfailingly -- to read when he interacts with from his colleagues on the bench to litigants to the courts professional staff. He volunteers regularly in this committee and encourages all he 10:12:31 AM does to do the same. He is into a dedicated public servant in the truest sense of those words. I will always be proud of the time I spent as his logbook and I'm prouder still today to support his confirmation to the supreme court. Thank you. ROCHELLE GARZA >> Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this and on the nomination of judge Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court of United States. My name is Rochelle Garza and I'm an attorney and managing member of Garza and Garza PLC in Brownsville, Texas, along with my brother-in-law and partner. My practice is focused on working with children and immigrants and victims of violence including unaccompanied minor children, the areas of immigration, family and criminal law. I am proud to have been the guardian provided -- and unaccompanied immigrant minors with for the company say stented to 10:13:33 AM block from accessing abortion. And I'm here today to talk about what this expense was like for Jane and the impact the judge Kavanaugh's ruling had on her life. Jane was 17 when she left for home in Central America where she was physically abused by her parents and traveled thousands of miles to seek safety. In September of 2017 she arrived in the United States after a long and dangerous journey. As she later said, my journey wasn't easy but but I came it with hope in my heart to build a life I can be proud of. She was put into the custody of the office of refugee resettlement and placed at a facility for immigrant children in the Rio grande valley. There Jane learned she was pregnant. She immediately knew she did not wish to proceed with the pregnancy and express this to the facility staff. But as we were about to learn, Jane with face unprecedented obstruction by the trump administration. I will never forget meeting Jane for the first time. She was petite, 17-year-old. 10:14:35 AM But as a quickly learn no one should underestimate her. Her resolve with strong and she was very certain about her decision to terminate her pregnancy. In Texas minors seeking to commit the pregnancies must obtain parental consent or a judicial bypass which is an order from the court allowing the minor to consent to the procedure on her own. It was in that context that I was appointed Janes guardian. A state court granted her bypass and the skill to her appointment and confirm the medical cost would be covered by a private forces then the government stepped in and out of facility to prevent her from going to her medical appointment. The way Jane was treated was unbearable picking up she made her decision, she was forced to undergo by counsel including medically unnecessary sonogram and -- at an anti-abortion crisis since. As Janes later said, people I don't even are trying to make me change my mind. 10:15:36 AM I made my decision of that is between me and god. Against Jane's objections they told her mother she was pregnant and wanted an abortion. And even though Jane did disclose when her older sister became pregnant her parents had beaten her until she miscarried. Jane was placed under constant surveillance and no longer allowed to leave on outings or exercise. Despite of his Jane was strong. She was determined not to be forced to carry the pregnancy to term against her will. So we fall back on her behalf. Without a lawsuit in Texas state court to apply the facility to lodging to be transported. At the same time the aclu pursued a constitutional lawsuit in federal court in D.C. On my behalf as Jane's guardian ad item. Although the aclu represents me come to be clear I am testify on my own behalf. The ac unit in a number to sort from the district court to stop the government from blocking Janes abortion but the government appealed. Judge Kavanaugh issued an order giving the government 11 more 10:16:37 AM days to find a sponsor for Jane come something they had failed to do for the previous six weeks. Furthermore, at the end of those 11 days judge Kavanaugh's order would not have granted Jane, the Jane could finally get the care she needed. Rather, should have two start a case all over again in the cover could appeal. This could've taken weeks and by the forced her to carry the pregnancy to term against her will to particularly because Texas bans abortion at 20 weeks and Jane was already 15 weeks pregnant. And this cluster is impossible to describe. Throughout her ordeal I saw her suffer. No politician or judge saw firsthand what she went through. As she later said it has been included difficult to wait in the shelter for news that judges in Washington, D.C. Have given me permission to proceed with my decision. Thankfully the appeals court overturned judge Kavanaugh's decision and I was with her when she had her abortion. I saw the release she expressed when she was able to realize the 10:17:38 AM decision she knew was right for her. But at the point Jane have enforcement pregnant against her will for an entire month and by the time come from timeshifting her judicial bypass. I am and will always be -- she possess a profound strength character Hercules no other girl should have to go through what she went through and that she said, no would you be seen for making the right decision for themselves. I can think of nothing more human or more American than what I saw in Jane knowing that she is now pursuing fellatio for gives me great pride. She may have been petite but she ignited change and just like she said, this is my life, my decision. It was an honor to represent her and to be by her side and to witness to perseverance and to share her story with this committee today. Thank you. >> Chairman grassley and ranking member Feinstein, my name is 10:18:41 AM LUISA GARY Luisa Gary, I'm a high school teacher and coach so it is unusual for me to not be in the classroom with my students on the first Friday after labor day but an honor to be up to voice my support my college classmate a longtime friend. I met Brett capital in 1983 almost exactly 35 years ago today. We were both incoming freshman at Yale. Brett was standing under a tent with the spent waiting to depart for the freshman outdoor orientation. I grew up in small town in Ohio and was accustomed to say hello to everyone I walked up and introduce myself. Brett warmly received my greeting fsb get a friendship that continues to this day. Our enduring friendship might surprise some because of certain ways were quite different. I have been teaching and coaching high school students for the last 30 years while Brett pursued high-profile career in law here Brett comes from a catholic upbringing in the city intends to the conservative outlook while I would describe myself as a modern maker who seeks out running trails and beaches. Artemis has allowed us to learn 10:19:42 AM from each other and see things from a different perspective. We have maintained a close friendship based on a mutual respect, support and trust. One of the things Brett and I do have income is an appreciation for competitive sports. We both have daughters and we often talk about the benefits of youth sports in facing strong, independent girls and women with confident voices. Brett and I not only watch a lot of sports, we also run together we first started running together while Brett was an associate at Yale law school and I was working ideal and training to compete in the 1980 U.S. Olympic trials for track. Brett was not much of a runner but he could keep up with me on an easy warm-up. After he ran his first three-mile race Brett and wanted to run the Boston marathon in his third year of law school. He asked me to promise to train and to run with him, and I agreed. Even though I was a competitive runner I had never run anything close to a marathon in distance but brats faith in my ability as a runner and coach gave me confidence to take on this challenge. During the marathon Brett waited 10:20:45 AM for me to water stops and bathroom breaks, just as I waited for him to leg cramps in blisters. We ran together step for step for 26.2 miles and crossed the finish line at exactly the same time. We ran the Boston marathon together again step for step two more times in 2010 and most recently in 2015 in celebration of our 50th birthdays. Four hours is a long time to spend to spend with some as you physically and mentally struggle through the mild but I was lucky to go through it with Brett whose humor, fortitude and idealism elevates those around him. Brett and I shared interest in the growth and development of young people. Many people have heard about breaks ask about coaching expertise but oddly even more students benefit from taking class with Brett. Brett is a bright articulate and engaging educator and he is generous with the time and attention he devotes to mentoring others. In November 2016 Brett welcomed juniors from my school to the federal court for a field trip 10:21:45 AM to learn about the judicial system. As we prepared for the business to its wanted to know, is judge Kavanaugh conservative or liberal? I respond they should wait and determine the answer on their own. Brett spent over an hour with my class explaining his role as a judge discussing current issues facing the federal court of appeals, and send the students questions and listening to their voices. He spoke passionately about his beliefs and the judicial system and the importance of the separation of powers and government. As we left the federal court a couple students remarked, we couldn't tell it is a conservative or liberal? Can you tell us? I responded that it is supposed to be. The G Shere is supposed. Brett has a wide circle of friends diverse political viewpoints and often has a willing to step at a potential uncomfortable forms with the spirit of collegiality. At our 30s concreting jet joined a panel. Each panel member spoke with likely about the challenges faced by universities in 10:22:46 AM addressing free-speech issues that were discussed had about a wide range of opinions Brett court of the character Atticus finch from the book to kill mockingbird and emphasize how important it is to quote stand any persons shoes. Brett doesn't just speak words of empathy, he listens and acts upon the source for his friends and colleagues described as a kind thoughtful person and a good listener. I it to others to speak to Brett's just a record that I'm here to speak to his outstanding qualities, , personal qualities as a lifelong friend. Brett Kavanaugh will be a voice of fairness and integrity as as a justice of the supreme court. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now Ms. Weintraub. ELIZABETH WEINTRAUB >> Thank you, chairman grassley and ranking member Feinstein, and the members of the committee for believing that I had something important to say about judge Kavanaugh. 51 years ago I was born with cerebral palsy, and just overall 10:23:51 AM had low expectations for me and people like me. Judge Kavanaugh has shown he has the same low expectation animated tell you that he is wrong. I have achieved more than many thought possible for someone like me. I work full-time at the professional -- Tuesday with the weekly YouTube series where I talk to people about policy in a way with people with mental disclose can understand if you are all invited to be my guest on Tuesdays. Today I live with my husband who also happened to have a disability. And together we make our own decisions and it has not always been this way. In my 20s some professionals 10:24:52 AM and my parents decided to put me in private institution. My parents let me but instead of taking me -- treat me like an adult with opinions and preferences and asking what I wanted, they made the decision for me like I was a child. This was wrong. There's a saying that we hold very dear to our heart, and that's nothing about us without us. This means that any decision that affects us should include us. We expect to be part of the conversation, even to lead the conversation. Self-determination is a basic human right for all people with disabilities. People with intellectual 10:25:54 AM disabilities have opinions and preferences, and they should be recognized. Judge Kavanaugh nomination matters to me. The D.C. Case made me really upset because judge Kavanaugh's decision did not respect people's rights and their freedom. This is wrong. The lower court told the D.C. Government they need to ask people with intellectual disabilities -- treatment. That requirement respect civil rights of people with disabilities. Judge Kavanaugh had a chance to stand up for the rights of the women and the kids, but he failed. He says that the D.C. Government did not even need to ask them 10:26:55 AM what they wanted, but could decide for them what was going to happen to their bodies. Would this have been too hard to ask them what they wanted? In adult -- every adult deserves to be treated like a grown-up and have the right to be asked what they wanted, especially with its about their own bodies. If -- it's important to understand and informed choice, then give it to them. Our country is founded on liberty and justice for all, and all means all. I worry about supreme court justice who doesn't believe that we as people with intellectual 10:27:56 AM disability can make decision for ourselves. If judge Kavanaugh is confirmed I'm afraid my rights to make decisions for myself will be taken away. I ask you for myself and my community, , when you vote on judge Kavanaugh, please do not vote to turn the clock back and take the rights that I and others have fought for. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Ms. Weintraub. I assume that if you're like everybody in the house of representatives you are always busy and you like to go, that's why you are probably on first I think I will go to congressman Richmond. Welcome. I previously had entered issue as a congressman and chair of the black caucus. CONGRESSMAN CEDRIC RICHMOND >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and we did have pending votes so I 10:28:58 AM want to thank you for the courtesy and apologist for being late and want to thank the ranking member, senator Feinstein, for being here. Earlier this week a senator argued that, or stated that it's not the U.S. Supreme court that is supposed to fix this country culturally, economically, socially, spiritually. Courts should not try to fix problems that are within the province of years congress, even if the the U.S. Congress does not have the courage to address those problems our courts were not meant to decide these kinds of issues. That logic would mean that African-Americans wouldn't be able to attend integrated schools, by home principal by a white person, or launch at certain hotels. In many cases the high court has acted when congress has neither the courage nor the will to act. For nearly eight decades 10:29:58 AM African-Americans have fought to secure the stork legal victories that have significantly bent the moral arc of the universe towards justice. Even at times when progress felt incremental. Nonetheless, we know that reversing meaningful progress for decades to come would be profoundly devastating and an affront to all the those who courageously fought on the front lines, some of whom are currently represent as chair of the black caucus. President trump us seize on this opportunity to pack the court by selecting judicial nominees who lack pragmatism and are often strikingly unqualified and proven intolerant bigots. We are in the midst of a fundamental shift towards nominees that embrace ideology at the fringes of mainstream legal thought. The current administration has nominated him with the help of senate Republicans, have confirmed a range of nominees whose confirmation hearings -- legal fate for communities of color moving forward. 10:31:00 AM Mr. Kavanaugh confirmation will fortify a generation of destructive conservative ideology at a a time when several historically significant legal challenges will come before the high court. As members of the cbc we cannot overstate what is at stake for African-Americans and commuters of color across the nation. Judge Kavanaugh relies heavily on the same textualist reading of the constitution employed by former justice Scalia possesses a conserve judicial record that leads us to believe that voting rights, education, criminal law outcomes will be greatly endangered in the coming years a careful in-depth evaluation of his record, which is largely been shrouded in secrecy and without some public examination, uncovers writings that illustrates sparse commitment to equal action under the law. Additionally, judge Kavanaugh's lack of deference to precedent is stuck at a consistent with other conservative judges who currently reside on the D.C. 10:32:01 AM Circuit court with him. A judge who quickly questions key legal precedence represents a grave danger to many legal frameworks that have advanced the African-American community. Voting rights come from Ohio to Wisconsin to Georgia, the vestiges of Jim crow have resurfaced under a new cloak unchecked and unabated while these states are no longer conducting literacy tests, the effects of the new policies have ever met it with staggering precision and efficiency. Ifi for vote more than four years ago the court struck in section four of the board was asked of 1965. Making section making section five of the law essentially unworkable. The decision was precipitated a myriad of voter suppression efforts across the country. Most recently the Randolph county board of elections and registration in Georgia inexplicably considered a proposal called for the closure more than three-quarters of the polling locations in the 60% black county, including one 10:33:02 AM location that is 97% African-American. Despite the eventual rejection of his ill-fated proposal, the federal government never bothered to intervene at the villa statutorily obligated responsibly. Simply put, there is no longer any active better mechanism dedicated oversight and safeguarding and individuals constitutionally protected right to vote. As I have told you in January of 2017, Jeff sessions record on civil rights is questionable and one that shows he doesn't care about enforcing civil rights. It is within this context that we have grave concerns about justice Kavanaugh is opinion in the 2012 cases state of south Carolina versus holder. In 2011 under the fully viable voting rights act of 1965 the Obama administration block enforcement South Carolina state issued photo id law. Because effective up to 8% of black south carolinians. In his rulings to oppose a law Mr. Kavanaugh claim it doesn't have the effects that some 10:34:04 AM expected and some feared. Not only is a statement inexplicably tone deaf, it is also inconsistent with reality. These same real-life consequences reverberate to other elements of everyday life for black families. On criminal justice, judge Kavanaugh's record on criminal justice is entirely unsatisfactory for a country or sicily struggled to hold law enforcement accountable for mass incarceration and police brutality. He has expressed a desire to overturn president that protects civilians from offices engaging activities inconsistent with the fourth amendment -- precedent. Probable cause standard should be more flexible which would expose more African-Americans to failed policies, please tactics like stopping frisk. Additional judge Kavanaugh support for narrow individuals Miranda rights for people of color or who are disappointedly excessive force engagement in the respective communities. And lastly affirmative action. Mr. Kavanaugh said record on affirmative action is particularly disturbing and 10:35:06 AM right for you an tiscali. Almost 20 years ago while in private practice he wrote that in the future the supreme court would agree that in the eyes of government we are just one race. Given the department of justce's recent investigation into Harvard universities admission practices which was deeply troubled by the likelihood this will come before the supreme court in short order. With that, trench I will submit the rest of my testimony for the record but I would just conclude by saying that with the clout of criminality and lack of transparency, the congressional black caucus, we represent 70 million Americans, and I just want to say for the record of the 70 million, only 17 million are African-American. We represent a vast variety of people and would represent a collective conscious of this country, lack, white and the spirit who gave their life to make this country a more perfect union and to fight for civil rights and to fight for justice. 10:36:06 AM And it is within that spirit that we have grave concerns and oppose the nomination of justice Kavanaugh. Thank you for your time and I know I went over. >> Thank you very much congressman. Now we go to Mr. Olson. [Shouting] TED OLSON >> Thank thank you, chairman grassley, ranking member Feinstein and members of this committee. [Shouting] >> I've had the privilege of practicing law throughout the United States for over 50 years in state and federal appellate courts, and 63 times before the United States supreme court. I have argued to 20 different supreme court justices appointed by 11 presidents from president Eisenhower to president trump. One-fifth of our nation's justices appointed by one-fourth of our presidents. My experience as give me 10:37:07 AM first-hand exposure to justices, numerous presidents have selected for the supreme court, the qualities that these justices have example five and the standards they have established for themselves and for their successors. Each of these justices has manifested the highest professional and jurisprudential standards, the qualities we expect injustices appointed by presidents of any political party. I have won and lost my share of decisions from justices appointed by presidents of every political background. I can say that in every case my clients and arguments were received with respect, understanding and great care. Americans are rightly proud of the supreme court and its injustices, the envy of the world. I will elaborate on five of the characteristics that I've seen in supreme court justices. 10:38:08 AM First, intelligence and learning. A justice on the supreme court must understand the constitution, the separation of powers, the bill of rights, the role of each of the three branches of government, and federal laws ranging from antitrust and patents to criminal procedure and the environment, and I could go on and on. The court decides 75 cases each year involving an awesome range of complex subjects demanding for each justice and extraordinary breadth of understanding, experience, erudition, judgment and insight. Secondly, respect for precedent and tradition. The chassis before whom I have appeared have uniformly manifested an abiding respect for the role of the judiciary and past decisions of the court. Not every precedent isn't 10:39:09 AM violent of course. As justice Breyer has explained in his book, making democracy work, , the court has occasionally been mistaken or wrong, but it bears have generally been collected over time. The justices are mindful of the importance of stare decisis and the public reliance on past decisions, but within the context of overarching fuel fealty to the meaning and intent of the constitution and the rule of law. Third, open-mindedness and Independence justices of course have their individual histories, predilections and past writings, each justice must examine each case on the merits, carefully reviewed precedence, Reese and oral arguments, and the use of the colleagues, and only then come to a decision. [Shouting] >> Any other approach, any other 10:40:13 AM approach would as justice Ginsburg has explained -- [shouting] -- Displayed disdain for the entire judicial process. Fourth, integrity. The justices of our supreme court, like our judiciary in general, reflect rocksolid integrity. We may strongly disagree with the court's decision some time to time, but no credible critic would suggest that the courts decisions are corrupt or dishonest. Our citizens respect and obey even very unpopular decisions, because of the believe in the integrity of the judicial process and the honesty of our justices. Fifth, temperament. An open mind and respectful temperament and collegiality are vital to the supreme court. And the justices before whom I have appeared uniformly listen to and probe, often intensely, 10:41:15 AM the arguments presented to them. But however strongly they have disagreed in a particular case, they have remained respectful, warm and gracious to their colleagues into the advocates who appear before them. I have known judge Kavanaugh for two decades. I know from personal observations and experience that he possesses -- [shouting] -- And has consistently exemplified the qualities that I have described. [Shouting] >> He received an outstanding education in one of the nation's finest law schools pickiest clerk for extraordinary jurists including the justice he is being nominated to replace. Fought constitutional law at Harvard law school concert in the executive branch and in private practice, and for 12 years at the highest level of the federal appellate judiciary. He is thoughtful, gracious, 10:42:16 AM open-minded, respected by his peers, and widely praised by the lawyers who appear before him. Our system contemplates that justices will be appointed by presidents of either party. As lawyers who appear before the court and as Americans who must live with the courts decisions, we cannot expect that our cases will be decided by jurists who always agree with our positions. But we can aspire to a judiciary that will be prepared, perceptive, confident, open-minded, honest and respectful. That is the jurist that is Brett Kavanaugh. He is the kind of person and judge that we expect and deserve on the supreme court. I hope you will confirm his appointment to this court. GRASSLEY >> Thank you, Mr. Olson. Now Ms. Baker. ALICIA BAKER, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ADVOCATE >> Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 10:43:17 AM My name is Alicia Wilson baker. I am a pro-life Christian and ordained minister from Indiana. I am someone who is denied the birth control and new because my intern companies religious police. And I'm honored to be here today, truly honored to speak on behalf of everyday women. If judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the supreme court I fear that many women, especially those who can least afford it, will not get access to affordable birth control because of their employers religious beliefs. With control allows women and people to control their lies, and without it when its health and the futures are at risk. I'd like to tell you about my background that I grew up and devout Christian family in California. My parents were related in their church congregation. My child is is filled with happy memories of attending church, learning how to put faith into action through mission trips and serving our community. I decide to go to seminary and 10:44:18 AM become an ordained minister so that I can serve others. I currently work at a local neighborhood center in Indianapolis by clever with local agencies and neighbors to improve the quality of life in our neighborhood. In 2015 I met and fell in love with my best friend Josh who was here with me today. Like me Josh is also a Christian who believes that faith is a verb, it's about how we live our lives. And like me Josh I decided to wait until marriage to have sex once we got engaged we when you would not be ready to have children right away so we started researching birth control options. Josh and I were on a tight budget and we struggled to pay off for student loans and say for a home. We were relayed that the affordable care act requires health plans to cover birth control. At no additional cost to us. On my doctors advice I decide to get an iud. What I got was a nightmare and a $1200 bill. It turned out my insurance company had religious objections 10:45:19 AM covering my birth control. Nothing in our faith disapproves of birth control. We were making prudent and responsible decisions for our family but our belief and our decisions were overridden by the religious beliefs of an insurance company. And in the days leading up to her waiting for some months after I was fighting with my insurance company sending appeal after appeal. In the end Josh and I scrounged together the money but we had used the money we set aside to pay off for student loans and by our first home together. I still feel a pit in my stomach when I remember the stress and anxiety that we went through just as we are starting our new life together. But I know I am fortunate that I was ultimately able to pay that bill. But what happens to those who cannot pay for the birth control? What happens to those who face an impossible choice between getting the healthcare they need and putting food on the table? Or paying for child care or staying in school? 10:46:21 AM If judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the supreme court, access to affordable birth control will be in jeopardy. Just three years ago judge Kavanaugh heard a case was about civil to what Josh and I experienced or in the case judge Kavanaugh would've allowed employers and universities to use religion to deny birth-control coverage to individuals. If judge Kavanaugh had his way, courts would get free range to those who claim their religious beliefs over by the law. As the Christian I am against such broad interpretations of religious freedom. It is not right that employers may be allowed to use religion to avoid following the laws of the land. I fear that someone uses this reason not to protect religion but as a way to discriminate. I shudder to imagine what this means for real people, for the community as I work with every day. At this critical moment when so much is on the line for women and their family, my faith 10:47:22 AM guides me. Proverbs 31 says speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy. As a person of deep faith, I I would never impose my religious beliefs on anyone and Noel should either. My religious beliefs are separate from the law and that's how it should be. But judge Kavanaugh's record shows he does not respect this critical separation. This committee and the senate must weigh the harmful impact that judge Kavanaugh would have on the health and well-being of so many people. I urge this committee to block his nomination to the supreme court. Thank you. GRASSLEY >> Thank you, Ms. Baker. COLLEEN ROH SINZDAK, FORMER STUDENT OF BRETT KAVANAUGH >> Mr. Chairman, ranking member Feinstein, and members of the committee, thank you for the 10:48:23 AM opportunity to address the committee about my former Harvard law school professor, judge Kavanaugh. I took judge Kavanaugh's separation of powers class in the winter term of 2009. In the years since he has served as a trusted mentor to me. My experience as judge Kavanaugh student and 90 has led me to offer my from support of his nomination to the supreme court of the United States. In some ways my support for judge Kavanaugh is unsurprising. A recent new times article catalogue the exceptionally strong reviews that judge Kavanaugh students have given to his teaching. Over the years students anonymous feedback forms have consistently lauded the judge as an outstanding professor, one who strives to present a balanced view of the material in class, and he makes himself uniquely accessible to students outside of the classroom. I wholeheartedly agree with that praise. Multiple articles have also 10:49:23 AM detailed judge Kavanaugh's role as a mentor and sponsor for young lawyers, many of them females and minorities. You have heard about judge Kavanaugh's impressive record of hiring women and the first law clerks but judge Kavanaugh's effort as a mentor are not limited to his clerks. He also works to maintain connections with countless law students and young lawyers across the country. Judge Kavanaugh is an invaluable resource and advocate for those starting out in the profession and a champion of diversity in the legal world. Ever since I took his class he has been a mentor and the sponsor, offering friendly advice, help support and a listening ear as I've navigated the stages of my legal career. When I was considering applying for supreme court clerkship, judge Kavanaugh generously offered his advice and support, helping me to obtain a clerkship or chief justice Roberts. 10:50:24 AM And when he went back to work after having my first child, a lunch with judge Kavanaugh helped bolster my enthusiasm for my legal career. In other ways, however, my support for judge Kavanaugh may strike some as surprising. I am a registered Democrat, and from 2010-2011 2011 I had the great honor of serving as a law clerk for then judge, now not chief judge, Merrick Garland on the D.C. Circuit. In that role I experienced firsthand what a brilliant, fair, and kind jurist he is. I believe the judiciary and the country as a whole has suffered greatly from the failure to confirm chief judge Garland to the supreme court. I nonetheless support judge Kavanaugh's confirmation. In my view, , preserving and protecting the integrity of the judiciary means supporting and 10:51:25 AM confirming highly qualified judicial nominees, regardless of whether one agrees with the politics of the party that nominated them. In my experience judge Kavanaugh has the traits that make you imminently qualified to serve as a justice on the United States supreme court. His impressive intellect is obvious but the judges also open-minded. He is principled and he is evenhanded. First, in my interactions with judge Kavanaugh he has always demonstrated open-mindedness and intellectual integrity. When I think back on the judges separation of powers class, it is in his lectures I remember that it is his insightful question in the classroom debate sparked. The course types of some of the most important issues in our constitutional democracy. But rather than telling us what you think about them, the judge asked questions that enable us to develop our own views and share them with the class. 10:52:26 AM More than that, he seemed genuinely interesting here are varying perspectives. One of my favorite law school memories is engaging in a fierce debate with the separation of powers classmate over whether ins versus chad was correctly decided. Judge Kavanaugh seemed delighted to hear both sides and he encouraged us to develop our conflicting views. With judge Kavanaugh I was confident that if I could make the right argument he would accept my position. My belief in judge Kavanaugh's open-mindedness has deepened over the years to my one-on-one conversations with him. I often can't resist sharing my views on separation of powers issues and he is invariably engage solicitor and an insightful question or despite the fact we come from different sides of the political aisle. Second, in my experience judge Kavanaugh is highly principled. By that a mean something very specific. He carefully delineates the 10:53:27 AM difference between policy preferences and what the law demands. In the separation of powers class we often discuss current events and the way the implicated various constitutional concerns. Also consideration inevitably came up and we discussed those but the judge would repeatedly remind us that those policy concern are besides the point if the constitution dictates a different outcome. More generally, the judge taught us the way to discern the legal principles that undergird our democratic system is to look to the text, history, and precedence regarding the constitution, not our policy preferences. Third, judge Kavanaugh is even handed and treats people fairly and with respect. In class he gave the same consideration to the use of all students. I consistently felt he was judging our answers based on ability to reason clearly and 10:54:28 AM support our points, not based on any political ideological standard. Judge Kavanaugh evenhandedness goes beyond respect for varying ideology. In my experience he treats everyone equitably regardless of their gender, race or background. One would think or at least hope that in 2018 that should be remarkable but as a woman I know that explicit and implicit bias continues to plague the legal profession, just as a plague the rest of society. Far too often in my career I felt I was being treated as a female lawyer rather than just as a lawyer. But with judge Kavanaugh I have never felt that way. In my interactions with him I know that I've been judge on the merits of what I say, nothing less than nothing more. I believe that a person with 10:55:29 AM such sterling credentials and experience as a judge who so clearly values integrity, principal and fairness is eminently qualified to serve on the supreme court. I therefore enthusiastically support judge Kavanaugh's nomination. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. Now professor Murray. MELISSA MURRAY, NYU LAW PROFESSOR >> Chairman grassley, ranking member Feinstein, thank you so much for the opportunity to appear at these hearings on the confirmation of judge Brett Kavanaugh to the United States supreme court. My name is Melissa Murray and I'm a professor of law at new York university school of law I teach constitutional law, family law and reproductive rights and justice, and serve as the faculty codirector of the women's leadership network. Prior to my appointment at new York university I was the Alexander Morrison professor of law at the university of California Berkeley where I taught for 12 years come serve as faculty director of the Berkeley center on reproductive rights and justice, service 10:56:30 AM interim Dean Dean of law school like judge Kavanaugh I am a graduate of Yale law school. Over the course of the series much has been a judge Kavanaugh's work and kind is towards his clerks and those in his community. These accounts resonate with me as judge Kavanaugh and I've traveled in similar professional circles over the years. Back I have had lunch with him and I can attest to his religious and charming demeanor. But this nomination is not about who I I would befriend her with him I would have lunch. It is not about a Brett Kavanaugh treats a and full of women from elite institutions. It is about real people on the ground. People like the women to my right and the people they represent who will not have lunch with judge Kavanaugh, who will not meet with judge Kavanaugh but who will nonetheless depend on judge Kavanaugh to protect their constitutional rights to make decisions about their lives. As you heard from women like Alicia baker and Ms. Weintraub can confirm judge Kavanagh to the supreme court would threaten 10:57:32 AM people's ability to make fundamental personal decisions, including deciding whether to have an abortion. Reproductive rights are under serious threat in this country. What we've seen over the last two decades is a concerted strategy that would dismantle roe V. Wade piecemeal. Not in one fell swoop, but rather to a death by a thousand cuts. This nomination is the culmination of that decades long effort to destroy roe V. Wade incrementally without necessarily formally overruling it. The supreme court stands as as a bulwark against his assault on reproductive freedom. Just two years ago in heller,, justice Kennard joined the majority to reaffirm the undue burden standard first articulate and planned parenthood V. Casey, thereby reaffirming the court commitment to protecting reproductive rights. But judge Kavanaugh's nomination to replace justice Kennedy imperils the courts ability to 10:58:32 AM continue to hold the line on reproductive freedom. In cars or persons heart of the only abortion case to come before him, judge Kavanaugh voted to block a young immigrant one from receiving abortion care and assisted she ran pregnant against her wishes. Weeks after she made her decision and after she completed all of the state and post requirements. Although he claim to follow supreme court precedent and karthik judge Kavanaugh's opinion is skeptical view of these, I view that is out of step with the high court own view of those cases. Despite his claim during his confirmation hearings that he was respecting supreme court precedent on minors and abortion, in fact, is the second shows the opposite. He ignored supreme court holding in 1979 that allows minors to complete a confidential judicial bypass in lieu of parental or guardian consent. Jane doe had already met the Texas department of the judicial bypass the time her case came 10:59:35 AM before judge Kavanaugh, so for the delay to seek a sponsor was wholly unwarranted. Further, judge Kavanaugh did not explain how the government slack prohibition only preventing Jane doe from accessing abortion failed to constitute an undue burden under Casey or a pre-viability ban under under United States. Nor did he way the potential harms to Jane doe stemming from a further delay against the purported benefits of that delay as is required by whole women's health. Judge Kavanaugh's record in Garza suggests that rather than respecting precedent, he will undermine or ignore it. And in so doing he will provide the necessary fifth vote that would utterly eviscerate the right to abortion. During these hearings when asked by you, send a fine second with the trade with the statement that a a woman's right to control her reproductive rights inflexibly to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation, judge Kavanaugh reply was not I agree. Instead, he said I understand 11:00:35 AM the importance of the precedent set forth in roe V. Wade. 11:02:32 AM >> With all of those rights in jeopardy. Make no mistake about it, a vote for judge Brett Kavanaugh is a vote against roe. Thank you for having me. PROFESSOR AKHIL REED AMAR, YALE LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR >> Thank you chairman grassley, distinguished senators. My name is Professor Akhil Amar. I am the sterling professor of science at young university where I specialize in constitutional law. I've previously testified before this committee on seven occasions and is always a solemn responsibility. Here are my top 10 points. .1, Brett Kavanaugh is the best candidate on the horizon. The supreme court's biggest job is to uphold the constitution. He has studied the constitution with more care, range, scholarly nose, thoughtfulness than any other sitting Republican judge under age 60. He's the best choice on the long list of 25 potential 11:03:32 AM nominees. I say this as a constitutional scholar who voted for Hillary Clinton and strongly supported every nomination made by democratic president in my lifetime. Original is in is wise and nonpartisan. Especially for those like Brett Kavanaugh who are originalists who takes you to what the words meant when they were adopted. To discern as principles and distill its wisdom. We originalists are following in the footsteps of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Joseph story and Abraham Lincoln among others. Original resume is neither partisan nor outlandish. The most important originalists of the last century was a towering liberal democratic senator turned justice Hugo 11:04:33 AM black. Who assisted in taking seriously the constitution's words and spirit, guaranteeing free speech, racial equality, equality, the right to vote, the right to counsel and much more. The originalists cited more often as - - the best provision was he not just the founder's vision but also the vision underlying amendments. Especially the transformative reconstruction and woman's suffrage amendment. 11:05:49 AM >> Brett Kavanaugh's views on executive power CSPAN 2 CC HAS STOPPED BRIEFLY 11:08:24 AM GRASSLEY >> I will start with Mr. Macleod because it seems you have clerked for different people with different views on interpreting the constitution. Judge Sotomayor and judge Brett Kavanaugh. I will let you list what you think the most important characteristics are and if you see Brett Kavanaugh meeting LUKE MCLEOD these.>> I think intelligence and faithfulness to the law.I think judge Brett Kavanaugh as his reputation shows has these characteristics. I think something that maybe is underappreciated in terms of the work the supreme court does is how closely the supreme court justices work together. Judge Brett Kavanaugh will work well as a colleague. He's talked about a team of nine working together with his colleagues on the court to 11:09:24 AM achieve a goal of justice and interpreting the law fairly. I think that he would live that model if you were appointed to the supreme court. >> Thank you. I will ask Ms. Gary but it's based upon a strong point the professor Murray made that we hear a lot about what Brett Kavanaugh have done for people to have worked for him. She fears he may not take the average Americans point of view into my mind and his work as a judge.would you want the average American to know about judge Brett Kavanaugh as a person and how he might see their problems? Not the people he's associated with all his life. LOUISA GARY >> In my experience, judge Brett Kavanaugh listens and hears everyone he speaks with. I think he considers people 11:10:25 AM from a variety of backgrounds. I don't think he's lived only in one sphere. I think he's exposed himself to a wide range of people and I think even listen empathetically and hear their voices. >> And probably appointees made and how he serves low income people at - - programs is an example. Is one way I would see from what he has said. - - GRASSLEY You are famous in the legal community in this town and around the country as well. You ought to interact with a lot of people or have interacted with judge Brett Kavanaugh. What do other members of the legal profession say about the experiences they've had with Brett Kavanaugh? TED OLSON >> That's a very good question. The fact is throughout his legal career, I haven't heard nothing but the highest praise 11:11:25 AM for judge Cavanaugh as a human being, as a lawyer and as a judge. As far as I can tell and as far as I've heard, he's uniformly respected by his peers on the DC circuit with whom he has worked on many cases for 12 years or more. Also the most recent appointees to the court.every lawyer I have spoken to whose appeared before judge Brett Kavanaugh has respected the experience and has related to me the fact that he has listened. He pays attention, it's impossible to tell exactly he is going to decide until you read the decisions he makes. In summary, the answer to your question is, I do not know of a lawyer or a judge who is more uniformly respected in terms of 11:12:26 AM his personality, his character, his integrity, his fairness and his competence. >> - - You obviously remember him as a good teacher. What are those qualities if you can transfer them to being a good judge and eventually a supreme court justice, what would you say about what you learned of him in Class versus is being a judge? >> I think the qualities I directly transferable. I think it was a great professor because he not only listened and engaged when he talks but he knew how to get people explaining their arguments and the best possible way. I think as a judge too, he needs to listen to everyone before him. He needs to be able to engage 11:13:27 AM with different viewpoints. And then also, he needs to be able to treat those viewpoints equally. In our class, I think he was open-minded and wanted to listen to all ideologies equally. Wanted to hear the different sides of a discussion and similarly, I think as a justice, he will listen to both sides of an argument. He will consider those. Thirdly, he knows what's important in the law. He wasn't just a teacher, he was a law professor. What he told us was that what matters in the law is what the losses. Not what your policy preferences dictate. I think in many ways, that's the most important quality for a justice and I think he exhibited that >> Senator Feinstein . SENATOR FEINSTEIN >> Thank you very much. I want to pick up on the last sentence you sai. That the issue quality shouldn't matter, should be the fairness, likability, qualifications only. 11:14:27 AM That might be fine if some of the critical things that many of us, I will speak for myself as a woman who's been a mayor. I represent 41 million people. Ms. Baker, America is like you out there today and the young woman. I see it over and over and over again. Miss Weintraub, I am so proud of you. Stand tall. Be strong. You are quite wonderful to be here today. Professor, I think you are very - - I thank you for your remarks. I've never in all my years here in with a pane, the majority of whom are women. Each one of you brought a different point of view and it is very welcome. For me, Miss Garza, I wanted to ask you a couple questions if I 11:15:31 AM could. Because the Jane doe case is really a problem for me. Because what it showed was there are so many things in the treatment I didn't like. The way she was treated by the office of refugee resettlement. She was subjected to unnecessary sonograms and forced to go to a crisis center. Subjected to harassment as I understand it. Had been physically abused by her parents. And went to a Texas judge and received an order of approval. I don't have that order of approval. What did the order of approval say? >> In Texas, you have to get a judicial bypass to bypass the consent from your parents. Enter consent to your own care. That's typically based on an 11:16:32 AM 11:16:32 AM own interest assessment. Whether or not it's in Jane's best interest in proceeding with making that decision on her own or whether or not she's sufficiently mature enough. In this case, it was in her best interest to proceed with that. The Texas court decided that and that's how the case moved forward. >> Now the panel that the nominee in question was on, or questions asked? Were you there? It was an appellate our. >> I was not there but I did listen to it. The question was not in question. The order was not in question. Jane went through every single hoop she needed to go through in Texas. Including complying with the Texas law of two days. And she was just being blocked. She wasn't being allowed to go to her medical appointments and she wasn't allowed to be released to her - - to myself 11:17:34 AM as her guardian or her attorney appointed by state courts. >> Why was that? >> Just to obstruct her ability to enact her decision. It was a policy enacted under - - and they directed the facility to not allow her to be released. >> Professor Murray, I think the arguments have been made here. And my great query is, women have never historically been treated equal. And finally, we got the vote. It began to change. We were able to go to higher education. The United States began to accept women and now the world seems to be changing in favor of women. 11:18:40 AM Is that if Roe goes down. And my generations in the 50s and 60s when the death toll was estimated to be between 200,000- 1.2 million of women that went to illegal abortionists and died. I don't want to see us go back to that day. So that is inherent in this vote. Weapons in this country are inherent in this vote. And if you look at where America is going, also the quality of the individual who will sit and that deciding sea , I think overwhelms most else. Your analysis and you spoke very cogently, how would you 11:19:43 AM analyze this judge affecting those issues? >> Thank you senator. It's clear to me reading judge Cavanaugh's opinions on these reproductive rights cases that he says he's following supreme court precedent but that is not the case. In the Garza case, the only abortion case to come before him, judge Brett Kavanaugh said he was following president yet he did not engage the question - - which would have required him to weigh the benefits of a delay against the burdens it would have imposed against Jane Dell. That's required by the supreme court under its most recent decision. He did not engage that at all. In requiring that Jane Dell take an additional 11 days for the government to seek a sponsor, his decision defied - - in 1979 case where the supreme court held that a state cannot require a minor to obtain parental consent or even to notify a parent unless it 11:20:44 AM provides an alternative judicial bypass option for determining whether an abortion is in the best interest of that minor. As miss Garza has said, Jane Dell went through that state required procedure to have a judicial bypass projecting that bypass. A Texas state judge determined an abortion was in her best interest. The government still prevented her from obtaining the abortion care she need. Judge Brett Kavanaugh's decision which would have require the government to continue looking unsuccessfully for a sponsor for an additional 11 days would have further delayed her care, making it almost 6 weeks from the time she decided to have abortion when she could actually receive it . >> Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. TED CRUZ >> Senator Ted Cruz. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman and to each of the witnesses were here. - -, Let's start with you. You're one of the most respected constitutional professors in the country. 11:21:44 AM In your opinion, is judge Brett Kavanaugh qualified to serve as a supreme court justice? >> Unquestionably. >> How would you compare his level of qualifications to other supreme court nominee, without specifically disparaging any other nominee? >> I have great respect for all the justices. I would actually say without naming name, I might rank him, I might predict at the end - - were he to be confirmed, at the end of his service, he would rank well above thaverage . I would say in the top tier of modern justices and they are quite impressive. >> Miss - - you were a student of judge Brett Kavanaugh's. >> That's correct. >> What was he like as a professor? >> He was open-minded, principled, very fai. He was also a really nice guy. I take the point of my 11:22:45 AM colleagues that likability isn't necessarily a criteria so I didn't get my comments in that direction but he was wonderfully warm. He took students out to dinner and was very friendly. >> Am I right you were part of the legal team that brought a challenge to president trump's so-called travel ban? >> That's correct. >> In your experience, at harvar, you found him fair
Archived Unity File