Latest Breaking News On - Bushv gore - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
this is what we do. we protest when we disagree and i don't think there's any reason for people to be told to come together and support this if they don't believe in it. >> i'm not suggesting support tonight's nominee but don't plan the protest before you know who the nominee is. >> and that is where we are. we're at the point of transparent obstruction on both sides, olivia nuzzi and david jolly, thank you. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> good evening. thanks, my friend. thank you for joining us at this hour. this is a big important historic news day. good to have you here. thank you for watching the news on a night like this and thank you for watching it here. antonin scalia, nino to his friends, he was beloved by his fellow supreme court justices. even the justices who disagreed with h the most, perhaps escially the justices who disagreed with him the most in terms of their day jobs. they loved his company.
justice scalia and justice ruth bader ginsburg they shared a love of opera. justice scalia and justice elena kagan, they went hunting and fishing together. justice scalia was deeply and antagonistally and provocatively conservative. he was also witty, he was also apparently really fun to be with and he lived an active life. he also had heart trouble. and last february almost a year ago he died in his sleep. he was at a swanky hunting lodge in texas only about 30 miles from the u.s./mexico border and it was a shock when he died. it was a very, very sad loss for his family and in friends. it was also, of course, a political shock because his death was a surprise and it opened up a surprise vacancy on the supreme court. and with almost exactly a year left in his presidency we learned that barack obama would get to name a court nominee to
fill the seat vie kated on the court by the death of antonin scalia. or not. even before former president obama named his nominee, even before he named judge merrick garland, republicans announced that they would hold open the scalia seat. they would not hold hearings for any obama nominee no matter who the president picked they were not going to consider his nominee. honestly because the president is a democrat and they didn't believe they had to and so they believed they would not thank you very much. and that has never been happened in our country. not like that. but tonight that radical decision, not a radical decision by donald trump but a radical decision by the republican party in the senate, tonight that radical act by congressional republicans it bore fruit -- awkwardly phrased fruit, a little hiccup in the execution
court tonight. they are ready to go even before the name neil gorsuch was announced tonight. they were there to protest this nomination not necessarily because of anything specific about him because nobody knew it was going to be him until 8:00. those protesters were there and set to be there because of the circumstances surrounding this vacancy on the court and surrounding this nomination. democrats in the senate even before neil gorsuch was announced tonight, senate democrats openly mulled whether they should try to reciprocate in kind what the republicans did to president obama with holding this seat open for almost a year. as to whether or not democrats have the power to do that, well, the senator who has led the charge and said that he will lead a filibuster to hold this seat open because this is a stolen seat, that democratic senator is going to be joining us tonight live in just a few minutes. you will want to see that. as for the specifics of this nominee, though, judge gorsuch
is most famous nationally for his role in a controversial case bought by the hobby lobby retail chain. the hobby lobby retail chain for years they had provided health insurance to their employees that included coverage for various kinds of birth control. then insurance became a point of controversy in obamacare, in the affordable care act and once that happened hobby lobby decided that they had an objection on religious grounds that they had religious beliefs as a business and those religious beliefs were now being violated by the affordable care act, by the regulations around insurance and the affordable care act even though they had been providing birth control coverage through their employees' insurance all along. they just discovered these religious objections once it became a controversial issue in the affordable care act. it was a strange case. it was a controversial case. the retail store's claims
succeeded at the supreme court but the way the case got to the supreme court was in court through neil gorsuch's lower court where he sided with them on their religious objections. judge neil gorsuch does not have a subtsunami shl record specifically on the hot button issue of abortion in terms of how both sides react to his nomination. judge neil gorsuch was confirmed to his current seat on the appeals court by a voice vote in 2006. the president described that as a unanimous vote and it's a kind of unanimous vote but it mostly means people don't formally vote, it just got approved. judge gorsuch is from colorado. judge gorsuch's family has a famous political history because his mom ran the epa for ronald reagan in a tenure that ended really, really badly and is a fascinating story. but that was his mom. as for him, how is this going to go? what should we know about him? joining us now is the senior editor and legal correspondent
at slate magazine, someone i always want to turn to as nights like this. someone we booked before we knew it was going to be neil gorsuch. doll ya, thank you for being here. great to have you with us. >> thanks, rachel. i'm assuming you booked someone else and it was right down the wire who you called? >> i was going to summon you both and make you stand hear wearing the same outfit then i was going to have someone in a ball gown pull a spangly curtain reveal one of you but we don't the budget for that kind of thing. neil gorsuch was a -- we've known for a few days he was on the shortest short list, that he might be one of the picks, what's your overall view of this choice by the president? >> in a way it's hugely surprising because if you think about the president's -- most of hisabinet picks he'sked in some sense the most nihilist choice. that is not neil gorsuch. this is not a bomb thrower,
someone in any way who doesn't believe in the judicial branch and in that sense it's surprising because i think disrupters are kind of trump's things so this is an incredibly solid respectable conventional pick that anyone would have made. in once sense it's surprising for trump because trump promised us a blue-collar non-ivy non-fancy pants guy and gorsuch was on the short list. so in that sense it's a funny pick but in every other sense conventional. >> he's sort of in the same way that the president attacked goldman sachs for having captured hillary clinton and having been the great downfall of ted cruz's ties to goldman sachs and then he brings on six people from goldman sachs into the administration. he is famous for the hobby lobby case, for his role at the
appeals court level while that case made its way to the supreme court. i described that in a short way. tell me 23 i got that right and why that might be important in terms of controversies or important insight into what he might be like? >> look, i think you made this point and it's important. the two litmus tests that trump promised on the campaign trail were somebody who was going to support guns and someone who was going to end roe v. wade and in a strange way he picked a guy who has no actual record on those issues. you can dance around them but in a weird way give than he pledged that those were his nominees, unless he knows something we don't know he's put gorsuch in a funny position. there's not a tremendous record. i will say on hobby lobby and abortion we know that gorsuch not only voted as you said against the contraception mandate, we know -- his academic interest, his big book he's written and thought about all has to do with end-of-life
issues, physician assisted suicide, the sanctity of life, a useful template to think about how he might think about abortion but certainly squarely on these issues we don't have a ton of guidance, we know generally he is scalia-like both in his approach, his sort of minimalist textualist approach and scalia-like in his politics but on these issues he's a bit of a cipher. >> on that, because abortion has been such a point of contention for nominees in both parties and they go through this kabuki theater of pretending like they've never thought about it before when they're asked about it at their confirmation hearings, we've been hearing noise that anti-abortion groups might not be totally comfortable with him. that in the ambiguity there might be some concerns on the right that he's insufficiently anti-abortion. is there any reason to suspect that? >> i don't think there's reason
to suspect that but as i suggested, rachel, i think the fact that trump didn't pick someone who looked like a bill pryor who he promised us, a culture warrior who was coming out blazing for roe and he didn't give that. i would not be surprised if some of the anti-roe groups are really pretty perplexed that he didn't make good on the one promise that got them out to the polls for someone that in other ways they didn't like very much at all. >> dahlia lithwick, senior editor, legal correspondent at slate magazine, i'm sure we will be talking more about neil gorsuch in days ahead, thanks for being here, my friend. >> thanks, rachel. 1789, president george washington got to be the first president to make a nomination to the united states supreme court. 17 1789. there, of course, are benefits to being first. when george washington got to make his supreme court nomination, he got to nominate six justices all at once. brand new court, got to fill it up. when he made those six nominations in two days the
united states senate confirmed all six of them. that's how we got the very first supreme court and every president since george washington would love to be treated like that, white? they'd love to have everybody confirmed in two days and pick every justice on the court but there will never be another george washington, that said it isn't usually that hard for presidents to get their nominees confirmed speaking as a general matter. in american history the vast majority of supreme court nominees have been confirmed and the vast majority of those confirmed have been confirmed by a lot, by big overwhelming votes, there's only been a handful of enxceptions in moder history. reagan nominee robert bourque was rejected by the senate in 1987. in the george h.w. bush administration, in 1991 clarence thomas was almost rejected by the senate. he squeaked by on a 52-48 vote, the narrowest approval margin for a supreme court justice in modern history.
there was also a weird period before that, 1968, 1969, 1970, that was like a bermuda triangle for the supreme court. this was after lbj's triumphant nomination of thurgood marshall to be the first african-american supreme court justice. after that things went off course and over the next few years with johnson at the end of his firm and nixon at the beginning of his time as president between them the two of them air balled on four different nominees for the supreme court who were all rejected or forced to withdraw in scandal. but again i think of that as a weird bermuda triangle period in supreme court nominees. there are exceptions. there was that time period. there was the tough time for clarence thomas, robert bourque, those were exceptions but that proved the more general rule. if you get to the point where the president is nominating you to be a supreme court justice and the senate is considering your nomination to be a supreme court justice you are likely to get through.
look at the justices confirmed in the late 20th century. anthony kennedy, 1987. the vote on him was 97-0. david souter, approved in 1990. the vote on him was 90-9. ruth badernsburg, approved in 1993. 96-3. stephen breyer, the following year, his vote was 87-9. that's how the last century ended. overwhelming votes on what supreme court nominees huge votes, 90-vote margins. that's what they used to get. liberals, conservative, didn't matter. everybody got those overwhelming numbers. then we hit the millennium. this century kicked off with bush v. gore. with the bush v. gore decision in the year 2000, the immensely controversial decision in which the supreme court actually chose the president in a 5-4 vote where the votes lined up precisely on ideological lines, conservative justices all voted for the republican, liberal justices all voted for the democrat and because there were
five conservatives and only four liberals on the court, that's the reason why we got president george w. bush instead of president al gore. and then to rub salt in the wound, for the first supreme court pick of the 21st century, the first supreme court pick after that, president george w. bush chose one of the lawyers who had advised the bush camp on the florida recount in bush v. gore. talk about chutzpah. ultimately john roberts did very well at his confirmation hearing. he did get confirmed. the vote was 87-22 which is narrower than most votes historically but not bad. then, perhaps a little high on life over how well that went with john roberts despite how bold that pick was maybe a little overconfident, maybe feeling too many of his oats, we then got the harriet miers disaster. what was that about? president george w. bush after his success with john roberts he nominated his old buddy, his old
friend from texas whom he had brought to washington to work in the white house counsel's office. nobody had any idea why hemiers than the fact that he liked her and they went way back. that was greet with bipartisan bafflement. conservative groups ran ads going against it. that nomination lasted precisely 24 days before it was withdrawn. and less son learned apparently, we got samuel alito. ultimately when the vote came for alito there were 42 no votes against him, all from democrats. the most no votes against a successful nominee since clarence thomas. then thereafter we got a new president and we got president obama's two nominees, sonia sotomayor and elena kagan, neither of whom was particularly controversial as a pick but more than 30 republicans voted no on
each of them anyway. you see the overall trend here, right? no supreme court nomination is exactly like the ones that preceded it but you see the trend here. it has become hardener recent years to get confirmed as a supreme court justice. particularly post-bush v. gore and that process with votes getting more partisan that process was under way before justice antonin scalia died last year unexpectedly on february 13 almost a year ago now. and immediately after justice scalia died, the night of his death republicans said they wouldn't allow a vote on any nominee to replace him. president obama ended up
nominating merrick garland anyway. the definition of a non-controversial moderate choice. the republicans never even held a hearing on him. they have held open that seat for more than a year simply because they didn't want a democratic president to appoint someone to the court. several republican senators sid before the presidential election that if hillary clinton won the election they would continue to hold that seat open for four years, for eight years if necessary because hillary clinton is a democrat. new republican rule, democrats don't get to appoint supreme court justices. openly h lly hewing newly defin washington, d.c. principle that only republicans can nominate supreme court justices. the nominating process was already harder than it was historically and way more partisan and that was before the republicans held a seat open for a year for 100% partisan purposes which is the only reason the new president had
this seat to fill tonight and now the nomination will go to neil gorsuch. this was going to be hard anyway, just look at the history. now i think it's safe to assume dexs are going to make this as difficult as humanly possible even before we knew who the name of the nominee would be. gorgeou. oh, did i say there's only one special edition? because, actually there's 5. aaaahh!! ooohh!! uh! holy mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. which one's your favorite? (laughter) come home with me! trade up to the silverado 2500hd all star edition and get an average total value over $11,000 when you find your tag. find new roads at your local chevy dealer. that ride share? you actually rode here on the cloud. did not feel like a cloud... that driverless car? i have seen it all.
intel's driving...the future! traffic lights, street lamps. business runs on the cloud... and the cloud runs on intel. ♪ i wonder what the other 2% runs on...(car horn) why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help rht away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. crammed into your brand-new car. i'm so sexy, you can't keep your hands off me. do it again. there you go... i can do whatever you want. except keep your eyes on the road.
now would be a good time to have new car replacement. so get allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like me. it's good to be in good hands.
colorado, police arrived on that scene, it was friday night and they found a 22-year-old named ryan wilson. he admitted to police some of the pot plants in the field were his but then he decided to bolt. he started to make a run for it. and one of the police officers on the scene shot ryan wilson with a taser, shot him in the head and ryan wilson died that night. the coroner said he died of an irregular heart beat caused by the combination of the exertion from running from police, the shock from the taser and a heart condition he had had since birth. the following year, ryan wilson's parents filed a wrongful death suit. his parents argued ryan wilson didn't do anything that could be construed as violent. the suit claimed the officer didn't warn wilson he was going to use the taser, that when he shot him with the taser they claim that was excessive force that shouldn't have been used against their son that night. in 2013, that lawsuit ended up
at a federal appeals court, the 10th circuit u.s. court of appeals. a three-judge panel on the appeals court threw out the lawsuit, threw out the parents' lawsuit, threw it out -- the lawsuit was against the city of lafayette, against the police officer in question and the judge wrote in that decision that the officer who had shot ryan wilson with that taser, that officer has immunity which protects government official doing their jobs from civil liability and the parents' case was thrown out. the judge who wrote that opinion was neil gorsuch, president trump's nominee to the united states supreme court as of about 84 minutes ago. he's somebody whose record we're about to find out a lot more about starting tonight. joining me now is the professor of constitutional law. great to have you here. >> thanks so much for having me. great to be here. >> we had telegraphing it might
be judge gorsuch. what's your view -- first of all, just big picture as to whether this is a surprising nomination, whether this is a provocative nomination, what do you think? >> i don't think it's that provocative when you compare him to the other two candidates whose names were rooted about. so if you compare him to a pryor or hardiman. but what we have to compare him to is merrick garland. i don't want that to be lost. so we had a supreme court back in the beginning that was very fragile. but let's remember chief justice marshall was careful about husbanding the credibility of the court because it was a weak institution. people used to leave all the time to become state court justices or diplomats, something that would be unthinkable today because it's the most prestigious position -- >> the first chief justice left to be a governor. you would never imagine that happening now.
>> so what i'm worried about -- and also chief justice marshall used to insist that opinions be only in because he was so worried that anything less than unanimous opinion would weaken the credibility of an institution. what i worry about when i see those graphs about how conflicted we are with confirmation hearings is that the supreme court may not be the rock of gibraltar that we grew up with. it may not be a completely respected, really the most respected of the three branches if you believe the public opinion polls but may be seen as another partisan institution precisely because with all due respect the president is treating this nomination as a bit of a reality show but also and more deeply the fact that merrick garland didn't get a hearing. >> it seems the truly radical thing that happened is the merrick garland nomion blanked by the republicans. i didn't feel -- i didn't mean
to say it this bluntly but i don't know any other way to explain the principle to apply to that which is a democratic president shouldn't be allowed to appoint a supreme court nominee, not when republicans are in control of the nomination process because they control the senate. that was the truly radical act. it seems like the choice of judge gorsuch is a relatively mainstream choice you might expect from any republican president but the circumstances around this nomination are radical because of the garland nomination and that partisan precedent or the breaking of non-partisan precedent we've seen. >> exactly. and when we get to the game of comparing him to the other two candidates in this particular cycle we're already sort of losing the real debate which is let's compare him to the person who was nominated by the president, merrick garland. >> and do you think there are things in his history that will be substantively controversial or subject of acute questioning
or concern once he goes through this process? >> absolutely. this hobby lobby decision he was still extremely controversial. it says corporations are persons who can exercise religions and on those grounds can engage in the religious right to discriminate from laws that you or i would have to follow. so there's the health care contraception mandate promulgated by the obama administration and hobby lobby says we don't to adhere to that because of our religious beliefs. that's not the classic religious accommodation claim we believe that is brought forward by individuals. it's a for-profit entity bringing that so that's a troubling decision. this qualified immunity. i don't know if you've been watching this but there's an increasing drum beat among conservative scholars to get rid of qualified immunity all together because it gives too much of a bye to governmental officials so the qualified immunity case will be controversial then the hobby lobby case is not a stand alone with regard to religious
liberties. he dissented from denial of a hearing on bank which is a dissent from a decision not to rehear a case in a little sisters of the poor case which was kind of a crazy case from my perspective so it may be that there's reasonable room to debate this but from my perspective it seems crazy because the obama administration says if you want exemption from the contraception mandate sign this form and the objection from the little sisters of the poor was signing the exemption form itself was a form of complicity so they refused to do it so they were opting out from opting out and he believed they had a case so i do think there's a religious right to discriminate and different rules apply to believers and nonbelievers or people who belong to minority faiths is something we'll hear a lot of in the coming days. >> kenji yoshino, professor of constitutional law, always incredibly clarifying. thank you so much, we'll be right back. stay with us. ♪
do not go gentle into that good night. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ whether it's connecting one of or bringing wifi to 65,000 fans. campuses. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink.
more "doing chores for dad" per roll more "earning something you love" per roll bounty is more absorbent, so the roll can last 50% longer than the leading ordinary brand. so you get more "life" per roll. bounty, the quicker picker upper don't put off checking out your medicare options until 65. now is a good time to get the ball rolling. medicare only covers about eighty percent of part b medical costs. the rest is up to you. that's where aarp medicare supplement insurance plans insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company come in. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could help save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. taking informed steps really makes a difference later. that's what it means to go long™.
call now and request this free decision guide and explore the range of aarp medicare supplement plans. all plans like these let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. these are the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. call now and request your free decision guide... and start gathering the information you need to help you go long™. we've been talking about whether democrats will oppose the supreme court nominee just nominated by president trump. elizabeth warren senator of massachusetts announced she will oppose this nomination. quoting from the statement "president trump had the chance to select a consensus nominee to the supreme court. to the surprise of absolutely nobody, he failed that test, he carried out his public promise to select a nominee drawn up by
a list of far right activist groups financed by big business interest. judge gorsuch has been on the list for four months. before joining the bench he advocated to make it easier for public companies to defraud investors. as a judge he twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure rules favorite giant companies over workers and individual americans, he sided with employers who deny wages, he's ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination access. for years, powerful interests have executed a full scale at salt on the kp assault, they spent millions to keep this seat open and judge gorsuch is their reward. based on the long and well-established record of judge gorsuch, i will oppose his nomination." elizabeth warren putting herself on the record tonight, we're seeing a number of senators come
out and say what their intentions are around this nomination. one of the senators who says democrats should hold this seat open, democrats should refuse to vote on any one other than merrick garland for this seat because it's a stolen seat, that democratic senator joins us live next. (vo) maybe it was here, when you hit 300,000 miles. or here, when you walked away without a scratch. maybe it was the day your baby came home. or maybe the day you realized your baby was not a baby anymore.
every subaru is built to earn your trust. because we know what you're trusting us with. subaru. kelley blue book's most trusted brand. and best overall brand. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. but when we brought our daughter home, that was it. now i have nicoderm cq. the nicoderm cq patch with unique extended release technology helps prevent your urge to smoke all day. it's the best thing that ever happened to me. every great why needs a great how. it's about moving forward not back. it's looking up not down. it's feeling up thinking up living up. it's being in motion... in body in spirit in the now. boost. it's not just nutrition. it's intelligent nutrition. with 26 vitamins and minerals and 10 grams of protein. all in 3 delicious flavors. it's choosing to go in one direction... up. boost. be up for it.
i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity.
stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. summer of 1968, the presidential election was looming in the fall. and because when it rains it
pours in politics, that summer, summer of '68, the chief justice decided he would like to retire. chief justice earl warren told president johnson he wanted to retire. now, lbj was at the end of his term, he was deeply unpopular, he decided not to run for reelection and he devised a plan for what he was going do about that chief justice seat. he decided he would elevate to the chief justice position a justice who was already on the supreme court, a justice who'd already been on the court for three years, his friend abe fordisand republicans were not hot on abe fordice because of his liberal jew s -- views, bu that cratered when it was revealed justice fordice had taken speaking fees for college lectures so they filibustered him. they blocked his nomination. on october 1, 1968 a month before the election there was an attempt to beat that filibuster
and the abe forit is a nomination to be chief justice, that fell apart. >> forit is a lost, the vote was on cloture on forcing members to stop talking and to decide whether to confirm forit is a or not. they ended the filibuster and the clerk announced the result 45-43. that was two-thirds of the senate present. they decided the senate would go to overbusiness. >> that was october 1968. so long ago we didn't have c-span, we had senate sketch artists like it was a cameras banned from the courtroom situation. it was the last time a supreme
court nominee was filibusters. the last time it was tried, the sam alito nomination, supported by hillary clinton and barack obama, they attempted to filibuster alito's nomination but 20 democratic senators wouldn't go along and that effort failed so the last time they were able to pull this off was '68. is it going to happen again? can they pull it off? prior to tonight's announcement about who the nominee would be for the supreme court seat, before we knew it was going to be neil gorsuch republican senate leader mitch mcconnell had a slugs fuggestion for democrats -- don't filibuster. >> what i would suggest from our democratic friends is that the nominee be handled similarly to president clinton's two nominees in his first term and president obama's two nominees in his first term. >> president obama's two nominees in his first term, i'd
like to get really specific. right? because they don't want to talk about the third nomination that president obama made. no mention of merrick garland, president obama's third nominee who faced this unprecedented black cade by republican senators who refused since last march to even hold a hearing on his nomination despite the fact merrick garland was a completely non-controversial nomination. well, tonight the new republican president announced that supreme court judge neil gorsuch is his choice for that supreme court that merrick garland was supposed to be the nominee for. after gorsuch was announced as the nominee we got this statement from the democratic leader chuck schumer. "the senate must insist upon 60 votes for any supreme court nominee, a bar that was met by each of president obama's nominees. the burden is on judge gorsuch to prove himself to be within the legal mainstream and in this new era willing to vigorous ly
defend the constitution from the executive branch. the democratic senator affirming they're going to insist on a 60-voter there hold. republicans don't have 60 votes in the senate. this means democrats are going to filibuster. senate democrats were already under intention pressure from democratic voters who have been loudly upset with democrats casting votes for trump cabinet nominees. that pressure will intensify on democrats now that we have a supreme court nomination as well even before we got the name tonight one democratic senator had been standing up loudly and overtly saying he would filibuster pick regardless of who was because, he said, republicans effectively stole the supreme court seat from president obama. the senator who has been making that case all along is oregon senator jeff merkley joining us now. senator, thank you very much for being up late and being here with us on nomination night. >> you're welcome, rachel, wouldn't miss it. >> does the announcement of
judge gorsuch's name, does that change your mind at all about your desire to fill bust they are nomination? >> not at all. the point i was making was we must not forget this. this was not a normal consideration. this is a seat that was stolen from the former president, obama, that's never been done in u.s. history before to let this become normal just invites a complete partisan polarization of the court from here to eternity. at what point does a majority say in the future we won't let someone make a nomination two years into their four years or three years into their four years or their entire four years? so i made it clear i was going to insist on a 60-vote standard and that i would vote against closing debates. sos th s thathis is the way you what we refer to as the filibuster and we hope there will be enough votes to shut it
down. >> how many senator do you need to join with you in order to make it so judge gorsuch has to clear 60 votes? >> you have to have 41 senators vote against closing debate. >> there are 48 democratic senators. >> of the 48 you need 41. >> so we have either 48 who are either democrats or caucusing with the democrats. do you have sense of your colleagues' views towards this and whether or not you think you'll clear that 41 vote number. >> well, i suspect we're going to hear a lot of statements from colleagues but the colleagues who we're waiting to see if possibly the president would nominate someone like merrick garland are going to be sorely disappointed tonight. this is from the extreme right, someone who has said corporations are people, made that case, someone who has proceeded to be against class action suits which the only opportunity for fairness for a lot of citizens. you go case by case by case,
this was about the powerful and the privilege and oppressing the righ of people. i think there will be an enormous number of senators who decide that this person is not suitable because they will not honor our we the people vision of government embedded in our constitution. >> senator merkley, i've sort of been reading the tea leaves on this a little bit trying to get a sense of where the democrats in the senate are on this and whether or not this is a time when we might expect a democratic effort a big deal, that would be a heavy lift in political terms not just because of the qualifications of this nominee but because it would set a new standard for what it means to get a supreme court justice. i look at the size of those protests in the streets, the mood of the democratic base right now, the reaction of democratic voters and protesters to what the new administration is doing and who they've nominated to the cabinet and i see a lot of momentum. i see a lot of energy.
how do you know whether or not it's going to translate into this working. are you worried if you try and fail democrats will be showing weakness here? >> i never worry about trying and failing. you have to fight the battle you believe in and that's what enables you to win is to undertake that battle. i can tell you this weekend i had two town halls on saturday. the first had 600 folks crowded into a gym that could only fit about 400. it was almost scary and i thought i am never going to see another town hall like this. i went to my second town hall and 3700 citizens showed up to weigh in about how angry they are, how frustrated they are about how america has gone way off track after just the ten days of this presidential leadership by trump. >> senator jeff amerimerkley of oregon about to be involved in one of the political fights of your life, sir, thank you for helping us understand, appreciate you being here.
>> this is going to be interesting. what jeff merkley has said will be the democratic strategy is to get 41 democrats to line up with the filibuster. they have 48 democratic or caucusing with the democratic caucus senators in the senate. if they can get 41 of the 48 to side with this strategy they can, at least theoretically, block this nomination from the minority. it would be a radical move, it would change the way that supreme court nominees are approved in this country, sort of been changing on its own anyway but this is going to be a fascinating thing to watch and it will be fascinating to see if those protesters out on the street, people showing up in town hall meetings and all those things over the country if they'll backstop their democratic senators on this strategy. this is going to be a hell of a fight. we'll be right back. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. with it, i earn unlimited 2% cash back on all of my purchasing.
and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... which adds fuel to my bottom line. what's in your wallet? daddy! lets play! sorry kids. feeling dead on your feet? i've been on my feet all day. dr. scholl's massaging gel insoles have a unique gel wave design for outrageous comfort that helps you feel more energized. dr. scholl's. feel the energy! if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring.
don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. this is one gorgeous truck. special edition. oh, did i say there's only one special edition? because, actually there's 5. aaaahh!! ooohh!! uh! holy mackerel. wow. nice. strength and style. which one's your favorite? (laughter) come home with me! trade up to the silverado 2500hd all star edition and get an average total value over $11,000 when you find your tag. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.
when i was too busy with the kids to get a repair estimate. i just snapped a photo and got an estimate in 24 hours. my insurance company definitely doesn't have that... you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance
gathered tonight outside the supreme court building. we're keeping an eye on that as we've had daily and nightly protests against some aspect of the trump administration every day for the last ten days. we'll keep you posted on that over the course of the evening. "how to win at business." step one: suck on and point decisively with the arm of your glasses. it is no longer eyewear, it is your wand of business wizardry. abracadabra. you've just gone from invisible to invincible.
step two: before your meeting, choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly so you can prepare to win at business. book now at lq.com companies across the state are york sgrowing the economy,otion. with the help of the lowest taxes in decades, a talented workforce, and world-class innovations.
like in plattsburgh, where the most advanced transportation is already en route. and in corning, where the future is materializing. let us help grow your company's tomorrow - today at esd.ny.gov so we know how to cover almost alanything.ything, even a "truck-cicle." [second man] how you doing? [ice cracking] [second man] ah,ah, ah. oh no! [first man] saves us some drilling. [burke] and we covered it, february fourteenth, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ when i was a kid, i was obsessed with jacques cousteau. pioneer in ocean exploration, he
helped invent scuba gear which opened up whole new worlds of human interaction with the sea. he ultimately dedicated himself to documenting the ocean. jacques cousteau films won three oscars, ten em mys. he became a pretty vocal and world famous environmentalist. he testified before congress about a bananas plan that had been developed by the u.s. government, a plan to burn toxic waste at sea. there was a plan that they would set aside a 30 mile by 40 mile rectangle off the coast of delaware and maryland. and that would be the place where we'd put one of the nation's biggest waste disposal companies on ships to burn toxic substances. they were going to burn these
toxins in huge incinerator ships right off the coast of delaware and maryland. because who cares? it's just the ocean. the amazing thing is that a major proponent of this plan was the epa. they thought it was a great idea. the agency called it well developed and understood technology. if that sounds crazy, it's because that's crazy. and that's what the epa was like under president ronald reagan. and the now mostly forgeten failures and scandals of his time in office, one of the ones we are now remembering is the way the epa was run at the beginning of his presidency, specifically under this epa administrator. she was the first female administrator of the epa. she didn't last long. she had to resign after 22 months on the job. after all, there was the idea to use big swaths of the ocean to burn our toxic waste.
one of the biggest controversies of her tenure involved super fund sites because this is how president reagan and his epa administrator handled super fund sites. >> the people of glenn avon, california, may owe their lives to the big trucks that haul away spring water from the edge of town. the water is laced with lead and pcps and other poisons. and the trucks, paid for by the state of california, weren't hauling off thousands of gallons of water a day now, glenn avon would be uninhabitable. most of the money comes from a special tax on chemical and oil companies. 1$1.6 billion should be raised f but critics say the super fund hasn't been used enough because of political delays political delays, example the springfellow acid pitsny of the
been spent yet. as for the charges of going too easy on industry, example, s seymour recycling, seymour, indiana. the philosophy of super fund was to spend now and sue later, sue the companies that polluted. >> super fund wasn't spent on seymour. instead of suing epa negotiated an agreement with the polluters who promised to spend $8 million to clean it up. this was the kind of coverage around super fund sites during the reagan era of the epa. photos like this running night after night after night on national evening newscasts turned out to be enough to shame somebody into resigning. the handling and the corruption arounds super funds sites under reagan ended up ending the tenure of his epa administrator
Antonin-scaliaOna-night-like-thisFriendsHis-fellow-supreme-court-justicesJusticesMostTermsCompanyDay-jobsJusticeLoveHuntingwords. that is the man who sits before us. nominated to be a justice on the highest court of our land. judge kavanaugh has the backing of his former law clerks and law students, his colleagues on the bench appointed by both republican and democrat presidents and many members of his local community in which he remains so closely involved. he is a man of honor, integrity and well respected in the legal community. there is no dispute he is qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. mr. chairman, i look forward to the hearing from the nominee himself when we all get done with our statements. [ protester talking ] >> as we discuss with judge kavanaugh for the public to hear, in his own words the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system. i look forward to this hearing and again, judge kavanaugh, thank you for being willing to
be here. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator booker. >> thank, mr. chairman. welcome judge kavanaugh i want to say welcome to your family sincerely as well. we're all americans taking part in what is truly historic moment. mr. chairman, chairman grassley, i hope you do not think earlier this morning that in any way i was questioning your integrity or decency, i was appealing to it earlier before and you have conducted this hearing giving myself and others at least the opportunity to speak and make our case, even though you've not ruled in our favor, of which i'm disappointed, i do hope you understand that i value your friendship and frankly some of the most valuable moments i've had on the senate i still remember shaking your hand and coming to agreement with you on criminal justice reform and i've could have tom a deep respect for you. >> if you worry about our friendship being affected, it will not be. that gives me an opportunity it say something to the public at
large. that is, about this committee. you would think that republicans and democrats don't talk to each other. but i'd like to remind the public that when they think that happens, they ought to think of the record of this committee. no the just this chairman. but this committee, in the three and a half years, maybe even before i got to be chairman. but in the three and a half years i've been chairman, every bill that got out of this committee has been a bipartisan bill. proceed, senator. >> thank you, very much, sir. i appreciate that. it doesn't detract from the fact that i just fundamentally disagree with the way you've been concluding today. when i first got to the senate i was very fortunate that a lot of senior statesmen, yourself, senator hatch included, pulled me aside and gave me hard wisdom. i came to the senate in a special election at a time we were changing some of the senate rules. senator levin brought me aside and gave me a hard talking to. senator mccain gave me a hard talking to. all of them made similar points,
about this idea that sometimes you need to be as objective as possible and see how you would react if the pendulum was swung the other way. in other words they warned me that what goes around in this place, comes around. and to really think that if the shoe was on the other foot and i've been struggling with that, sir, with all honesty of what would the republicans be saying, what would we be saying if we had a democratic president right now, a democratic nominee right now. and this process was in the reverse. and i would like to believe, how i would behave and i'm pretty confident, i would be a betting man, be willing to bet, that if the republicans were being denied effectively about 90% of the documents about a person's public record, and i actually do believe that some of the analogies that are made to senator, to excuse me justice kagan and her solicitor-general time, is not a fair analogy. this is a part of the nominee's history that he himself has said
was one of his most formative times. i would not hire an intern in my office knowing only 90% of their resumé. there's not a person here that would buy a home only seeing -- excuse me, only seeing 10% of the rooms. i just believe what we're doing here, just on the objective view of fairness, is sincerely unfair and it's insulting to the ideals that we, that we try to achieve with some sense of comity and some sense of rules. i want to go deeper than that. i'm trying to figure out what the jeopardy would be, what the jeopardy would be if we just waited for the documents. last night we had a document dump of tens thousands of pages. it's been said already there's no judge that would allow a court proceeding to go on, no judge that would move forward if one of the parties had just got
documents as of 5:00 last night or potentially as of 11:00. what i don't understand is what's the jeopardy of just waiting, not just for us to digest these documents, but other documents? the reality is, is that senator grassley, you yourself have asked for specific more finite set, more limited set of documents, that you haven't even gotten. and so whether it's not seeing 90% of the resumé of the gentlemen before us or 50% or 40% that should come within time and there's no jeopardy when we have a lifetime appointment. he'll be there for decades and decades, waiting another week or five days or two weeks for those documents that you yourself have requested, which is a more limited subset, for even those documents to come through. i don't understand what the rush is, especially given all that is at stake. and so those are the reasons why i say to you with sincere respect, that this is an absurd
process. it just seems unfair to me and it could easily be solved by us putting a pause here in this process, waiting for the documents, evaluating the documents and it would be a much more robust set of hearings, on this nominee. as i said i would not hire an intern if i had not seen, if i had only seen 10% of their resumé. to be a fuller body of the work of this gentleman before us, who as one of my colleagues called popping up in some of the most interesting times in the last decade or two, on some of the most important issues, already the limited amount that we call 7% of the documents that i've seen, unfortunately those are things that being held committee confidential. which i don't even know if i can use in my questioning here, i think the penalties is being ousted from the senate. even the little limited documents that have potentially made my questioning far more rich and substantive to get to
the heart of the issues of this individual nominee. i try to summon the spirit of some of the elder statespeople i had the privilege of serving with from rock feller to levin to mccain, to summon that spirit, to be as objective as possible, i do not think it is unreasonable for us to wait for a week or two to get the full body of those documents. it will cause no harm or damage, except to have more of a full telling of what is at stake here. this is, the stakes are too high on what this nominee represents for us to rush through this process without a full sharing of the documents. and with that, i'll continue, sir, with my opening statement. i have said before already th that -- >> i'll take this opportunity to probably say that you said i didn't get all the documents i requested. you, you probably heard the first sentence of something i
said after our break. and that was, that i could, i first started talking about expecting a million documents. we end up i think with 488,000. but then i went on to explain that the process with all the software and everything else that can speed things up, duplicates were, were eliminated, et cetera, et cetera. so we've gotten all the documents i requested. just to correct you. >> sir and to my understanding -- >> go ahead with your opening statement. >> i want to make a point to that if you don't mind. you requested a limited set of documents of his time in the white house counsel's office. we have not received all the documents from his time, they're still being vetted slowly through a system of not a representative from the committee, but the bill burke individual is still reading through those documents as we speak. i imagine some of them will be dumped on to us as this process is going on and predict with quite confidence that some of
those documents might still be trickling out in the days before the actual full senate vote. please, sir. >> you're talking about committee confidential. and you have access to them right now. they just, there hasn't been a determination that like, 80% of all the documents are on the website, so the public can see them, but in regard to some, they were forwarded to us. without a second review. the second review gives, gives an opportunity then get them out to the public. if there's not no reason that they are excluded under the law and you can read those committee confidential documents right now. >> well, sir, i submitted a letter days ago asking for that i will resend it in the next 24 hours before tomorrow. >> we responded to your letter. >> again, did you not respond our letter by allowing committee
confidential documents. >> lease go to your opening statement. >> look i was -- you know, form former, now former vice president biden talked about not questioning your colleague's motives and some of the colleagues across the aisle have called the efforts by some of us sincerely to get access to these documents, a sham, a charade. i can go through a lot of the words that were used. to question the motivations i have or doing what i believe, sir, is perhaps the most grave and important duty that i have as a senator. yes as senator cornyn has pointed out. i announced my decision already. but my duty is to fully vet an individual. that's why i think the documents are important. that the full record is made clear and we have chance to ask questions about them. i also have said that i oppose this nomination happening right now because of the moment we are in american history. which is very unprecedented.
i remind thaw we have had bipartisan statements by senators working in tangent about the attack on the united states of america. which was an attack going to the core of what our democracy is about. the voting processes. a special counsel was put into place and that has led to dozens of people being indicted. people around the president of the united states. it has led to dozens and dozens of charges and that investigation is ongoing. we have seen the president of the united states credibly accused by his own personal lawyer as being an unindicted co-conspirator. we have one judge being chosen who was not on the original list. he wasn't on the outsourced federal society's original list. he wasn't on the second version of that list. he got on to that list after this special investigation got going.
after the president was in jeopardy. he was added to the list and the president pulled the one person from all of that list, that was added late. that would give him in a sense the ability to pick a judge. that has already spoken vast ly about a president's ability to dismiss or end an investigation. so that's the second reason why i've asked to put a pause on this process. judge lar were hand said this, as powerful and profound as the documents of this country are, our founding documents, they're not worth much if the people themselves lose faith in them. and i believe the nom nay of a judge from ongoing investigation
prosecution, will shake the faith that millions and millions of americans have in the fairness of the process and the system and i've asked judge kavanaugh time and time again to recuse himself to restore that faith, to alleviate the concerns of americans and he has thus far refused to do so. now i am upset about the process. and this is not manufactured outrage this is sincere concern for a process that seems wrong and just not objective and fair. i am concerned about as my colleagues are on both sides of the aisle. a russian atag on our nation. but there's a lot more going on here that makes this nomination of great concern. and it's frankly some of the things i've heard from both sides of the aisle. when we travel this country and what we are hearing from individuals. and how that relates to a position on the supreme court. right now millions of american families are watching this, in
sincere concern and fear, i've heard them, i've gotten the calls. i've traveled the country. i've talked to republicans and democrats, they're fearful about where the supreme court is going and what it will do when it has the power to shape law, shape the lives and liberties for individuals for decades to come. i've talked to workers all over my state, all over this nation. workers that now work in a country where wages are at a 60-year low as a portion of our gdp. whose labor protections, workers whose labor protections are being diluted and whose unions are under attack. so many of those individuals are asking whether the supreme court of their lifetimes will be an institution that elevates the dignity of american workers, or one that allows powerful corporate interests to continue to weaken labor protections that didn't just happen. labor protections that were fought for. that people struggled for. that some, you know the labor movement actually died for. are these labor rights going to
become aggravated? are they going to become limited? further increasing the vast disparities of wealth and power in our country? we know this, we've talked to both sides of the i'll. we've talked to cancer survivors, americans with disabilities. survivors of domestic hay wus, parents with beautiful children that happen to have disabilities, who because of the affordable care act can no longer be denied coverage because of quote a preexisting condition. there's a texas case where that's being challenged right now. that's moving up. it could likely go before the supreme court. well knowing your record, it is right that these americans, so many of them with preexisting conditions are asking whether the supreme court will be an institution that affirms and protects the rights of people with access to health care. many people who rightfully believe when they read our founding documents that talk about life, liberty and the
pursuit of happied in, that health care they believe is fundamental. we all know too many people who have set aside prescription drugs because they're too high because of what corporations are doing there. people who have put off going to see the doctor because a visit is too expensive. that is in the balance with this nomination. i've gone across the state and senator durbin, i was in your state talking to a republican farmer, about how the farm country is changing so dramatically the livelihoods of so many independent family farmers are being threatened by the consolidation of large, multinational corporations. these corporations have acquired so much power this consolidation now from the seeds that they buy, the prices going up to who they have the ability to sell to, the abuse of corporate consolidation is driving so many farmers out of business. you see, one farmer was telling
me about the suicide rates. now people are saying this is histrionics, this is not life or death. i know these things are. often a matter of life or death when our insurance rates go down, more people without health care often lose their lives. there are, there is not one senator on the republican side or democratic side who has not seen, i've only been here five years and i've seen the culture of washington change. because of the obscene amount of dark money pouring in to our political process, corrupting our political processes. rigging the system. this nomination will have an effect on that. i've seen americans all over this country, it's a bipartisan work that i've done with senators on either side, who feel entrapped by a broken criminal justice system. one we know is unassailably
disproportionately targets black and brown americans. many americans believe, we have a system that treats you better than if you're rich and guilty, than poor and innocent. these issues are in the balance now. and everyone who is concerned about these issues and more are wopdering what the story of america is. we have this great leader, a man named king who said the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. there's so many american who is fought for these fundamental rights. whose family members, union organizersoring, civil rights activists, women's rights activists, who fought for, struggled for, and died for these rights. the right for women to make their own medical decisions, including right to an abortion, not a back alley butcher. the right of all americans to marry who they love. the right to vote. and to work free of discrimination regardless of race and the rights of all
americans. these are our rights, these are our american rights. and so we know the answer to these questions, i've looked through the record. i've had access to, to see the pattern of your decisions. and that's the pattern that really troubles me, judge, and i know we're going to get a chance to go through this. and my know my colleagues will as well. it seems so clear that in your courts the same -- the same folks seem to win over and over again. the powerful, the privileged, big corporations, special interests. and over and over again, folks that lose -- the folks, why i came to washington to fight, working folks, consumers, women, immigrants, minorities, the disadvantaged, the poor -- this is, the challenge before us, this is why so much is at stake. i love that my colleagues keep going back to the constitution. but understand this -- i laud
our founders, i think they were geniuses. but you got to understand that there are millions of american who is understand that they were also flawed people. we're the oldest constitutional democracy. we're the oldest one. we were founded in a break with human events, you know this, judge, i've read your writings, we not founded on some kind of tribalism, as much as we think it's breaking out in our country. we weren't founded because we all look alike, or we all pray alike. we broke with the course of human events and formed this nation, god bless america, god bless our founders, but we know our founders and their values and their ideals. we know that they, that they were flawed and can you see that in the documents. native americans were referred to as savages, women weren't referred to as all. african-americans, slaves were referred to as fractions of human beings.
constit-i can only say three-fifths of the world. >> senator booker -- >> i'm almost done. >> the only reason i stopped you at this point is -- i thought -- i would let people go at least as far as senator blumenthal went. and you reached that point. >> i'm a bit of a trail blazer, i'm going to push two or three more minutes. my point, sir, is that i'm proud of this -- >> your clock when it reaches 10 is your two and a half minutes. >> i want to point out from the activism of stone wahl, selma, seneca falls. there's an activism that i wo y worry, rights that were gained were rolled back and there's an amazing activist here right now, ms. carlotta walls lanier. and i thank her for coming today. it was 61 years ago on this very day, on september 4, 1957 that
ms. lan year at the age of 14 were shouting racial slurs, she was jeered. on that day, miss lanier joined eight other students, a group that would be known as the little rock nine to try to desegregate an all-white high school in little rock, arkansas. we know what they did that day was much bigger than the first day of school. it was the first major test of the supreme court's landmark decision, brown v. board of education. there are some judges that trump has appointed refuse to even say that that's settled law. there are people like ms. lanier who are part of gaining rights in this country, advancing the ideals of this nation towards the purity of the ideals put forth by the founders, despite the inperfections and now the fear and the worry is, where the trend of the court is doing, is rolling back those gains. undermining that progress. is restricting individual rights. as the rise of corporations, the rise of dark money, the rise of
the interests of the powerful and the privileged and the elite. so i just say in conclusion, sir, i said this to you in a heart-to-heart moment the last seconds that you were, you came to my office to meet with me, one-on-one which i appreciated. i pointed to the map behind my desk, the central ward of newark, new jersey. a place with mighty people. it's a low-income community. people still struggling for the fullness and the richness of the promises of america. that that's, that's the concern that i have right now. that is what is at stake. so i say in conclusion, sir, this to me, is a profound and historical moment. ky not support your nomination, not just of the body of your work, because also the perverse process by which this comes forward. we should not vote now. we should wait. and if we're not waiting, we should object to your nomination. thank you. >> senator tillis? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a 12-minute preamble and
an 18 minutes of comments. in all seriousness, i hope to beat senator flake in being brief. first off to ashley, i know that margaret and liza are gone, but you've gone through a very difficult day and you've held up well, to your parents, judge kavanaugh, i've got to compliment you on your mother's composure, i'm pretty sure my mother would have been out of the chair by now. so i appreciate all that you've done. you've obviously raised your son right. you know, i think we need to go back and recognize, we were going to be here this wasn't going to be a kumbayah moment. we had every member on this committee either publicly state or participate in a press conference before the sun had set on the first 24 hours of your nomination that they were going to vote against you. now we're asking for all kinds of documents and you're getting them. as a matter of fact, i think that the chair has done an extraordinary job. he started ott on this process by offering acquiring as many as
a million documents, we determined because of duplication and relevance, it was only half a million. and they've all been provided. and i'm not an attorney, but i am a technologist and i'm also a process person. and i know damn well, that if you get documentation like that, you can get through it in a matter of hours. and for the documents sent yesterday, can you get through it in a matter of hours, they have plenty of time to get documents, they only need to run up the score because they know they're going to run against you. i want to compliment you on your composure. you've taken a lot of notes. i'm going to spend more of my time listening to your responses, rather than talking over to and try to simplify things into yes, no answers that you can't respond to. so i look forward to your testimony tomorrow. i, you know the, as the hearing was going on. there were two things that caught me. i'm not doing my prepared statements, i'll submit them for the record, mr. chair, we're
talking about all this dark money and efforts going on the other side. i got an email from organizing for action. y'all would know that as the legacy campaign of president obama. telling me to oppose you because you're going to deny reproductive rights, deny health care coverage. advance climate change and in a bad way and end gun violence prevention. i don't know near as much about the institutions of government as let's say senator sasse, but i'm pretty sure once get confirmed on the bench you're not going to be able to file a bill to do any of that. what you may end up doing is finding out we got lazy, we didn't work hard enough, we didn't understand the constitution, we didn't reach across the aisle to create enduring value which is largely the reasons why people get frustrated with you. they want you to do our job. justice gorsuch sid numerous times in his confirmation hearing, it's not my job to do your job, mr. senator. if you're frustrated and worried about the prospects of somebody
being able, denied coverage, for preexisting conditions, then les fix it that's why i filed a bill a couple of weeks ago. let's fix it. don't play politics and blame the supreme court for your inadequate architecture of a bill. let's fix it. if you're worried about the balls and strikes that judge kavanaugh has called on the bench around regulatory issues, it seems to me you've called balls and strikes on both sides of the administrative procedures act. and there seem to be flaws in there that need to be fixed. for the attorneys in the room, who are studied on the law, rather than trying to get judge kavanaugh to commit one way or another on these policy initiatives, that the president obama and others around this table are interested in, get him to explain to you the legal theory behind his position. that may have in fact produced the outcome that he didn't particularly like. but because he did it based on his interpretation of the
constitution and the laws. don't expect him to be a politician. and as for motivations, you know i have to say that it's been said by at least one person on this committee, that on the one hand we shouldn't question other people's motivations, on the other hand, i find it personally insulting to think that because i think we have before us an em in-depthly qualified judge, someone who is going to call balls and strikes, to suggest that because i'm inclined to support him, that i'm complicit and evil really makes me wonder the sincerity of questioning other people's motives. so judge kavanaugh, i am glad that you're before us. i believe that you have 300 opinions that people should look at and read and try and spar with you on the basis of your legal knowledge. your constitutional understanding of the statutory constructs. it would be great and i hope that people are actually taking time to look at the single-most important factor in your resumé.
it's not maybe where you went to school. i guess that's good. it's not maybe where you practiced law. but it's the 307 different opinions, you can read and the dissents can you read. spar on the basis of your legal knowledge. those of you who want to prove to be the smartest lawyer in the room and see if you can prove a better theory that may actually give judge kavanaugh pause. but that's not what this hearing has been about. and i'm so glad that i'm one of the last people to do an opening statement. because what i hope i hear tomorrow, and by the way, just from a process standpoint. the we're going to have 30-minute rounds which in senate time is about an hour and a half per member. tomorrow. and then we're going to have 20-minute rounds the following day. everybody take time to talk about legal theory. stop the theater, and start talking about what's really meaningful here. i think if we do that, i have every confidence judge kavana h kavanaugh, you're going to be justice kavanaugh and i'm proud
to actually see you composure yourself the way you have today. i'll be asking you several questions on some judgments that frankly i didn't like. but i know you probably made the right decision and i believe that when you get confirmed to the bench, you're actually going to take some other opinions that i don't like. because it's what i wished you could do for me, because we failed to get it done here. but it will be done for the right reasons. and i think if people objectively look at your record, they're going to be hard-pressed to take all this theater we've heard today and boil it down into something that makes you look like you're an activist judge, just waiting to be one of the members of the nine-member legislative branch down the street. i think you're one of the single-greatest, great opportunities that we have to make the supreme court make us do our job and to rein in the dangerously high amount of authority that our administrative branch has. that's all i want you to do. and i look forward to asking you questions tomorrow. i yield back the rest of my time.
>> i see senator graham has rejoined us, he's more senior. okay, great. so i thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to restate my objection from earlier for the record. which is my motion to postpone the hearing. a number of comments have been made by my honored and respected colleagues, i'd like to address a few of them. one there was some mention a concern about elena kagan's hearing and that the white house at the time, there was an agreement that those certain records are sensitive and should therefore not be disclosed. it's my understandings that a a point of distinction between that time and today, that those were active cases in the white house and for that reason, there was an understanding and agreement that they were of a sensitive nature and should not be disclosed. in terms of the point that's been made about playing
politics, and blaming the supreme court, i think that we have to give pause when those kinds of concerns are expressed to also think about the fact that there have been many political campaign, that has been run, indicating an intention to use the united states supreme court as a political tool to end things like the affordable care act. the voting rights act and campaign finance reform. which makes this conversation a legitimate one. in terms of a reasoned concern about whether this nominee has been nominated to fulfill a political agenda. as it relates to using that court and the use of that court. as it relates to the 42,000 documents, or 42,000 pages of documents, i find it interesting that we get those documents less than 24 hours before this hearing is scheduled to begin. but it took 57 days for those
documents to be vetted before we would even be given those documents. so there's some suggestion that we should be speed-readers. and read 42,000 pages of documents in about 15 hours. when it took the other side 57 days to review those same documents. so the logic at least on the math is not applying. now the chairman has requested 10% of the nominee's documents, that's 10%. of 100% of his full record. the nominee's personal lawyer has only given us 7% of his documents. 7 out of 100% of the full record. republicans have only given 4% of these records or made them public. that's 4% of 100% of a full record. 96% of his record is missing. 96% of his record is missing.
it is reasonable, it is reasonable that we should want to review his entire record. and then we can debate among us the relevance of what is in his record. to his nomination. but it should not be the ability of this, the leadership of this committee, to unilaterally make decisions about what we will and will not see. in terms of itsed a missibility, instead of arguing about the weight of whatever is made admissible. the late senator kennedy of massachusetts called these hearings a supreme court nominee's quote job interview with the american people. and by that standard, the nominee before us is coming into his job interview with more than 90% of his background hidden. i would think that anyone who wanted to sit on the nation's highest court would be proud of their record. and would want the american people to see it.
i would think that anyone privileged to be nominated to the supreme court of the united states would want to be confirmed in a process that is not under a cloud. that respects due process. i would think that anyone nominated to the supreme court of the united states would want to have a hearing that is characterized by transparency and fairness and integrity and not shrouded by uncertainty and suspicion and concealment and doubt. we should not be moving forward with this hearing. the american people deserve better than this. so judge kavanaugh as most of us know, and i will mention to you and you have young children and i know they're very proud of you and i know you are a great parent and i applaud all that
you have done in the community. as we all know, this is a week when most students in our country go back to school. and it occurs to me that many years ago, right around this time. i was starting kindergarten and i was in a bus, a school bus, on my way to thousand oaks elementary school as part of the second class of students as bussing desegregated berkeley, california public schools. this was decades after the supreme court ruled brown v. board of education. that separate was inherently unequal. and as i've said many times, had chief justice earl warren not been on the supreme court of the united states, he could not have led a unanimous decision and the outcome then of that case may have been very different. had that decision not come down the way it did, i may not have
had the opportunities that allowed me to become a lawyer or prosecutor. i'd likely would not have been elected district attorney of san francisco or the attorney general of california. and i most certainly would not be sitting here as a member of the united states senate. so for me, a supreme court seat is not only about academic issues of legal precedent or judicial philosophy, it is personal. when we talk about our nation's highest court, and the men and women who sit on it, we're talking about the impact that one individual on that court can have, impact on people you'll never meet and whose names you will never know. whether a person can exercise their constitutional right to cast a ballot, that may be decided if judge kavanaugh sits on that court. whether a woman with breast cancer can afford health care, or is forced, off life-saving treatment. whether a gay or transgender
worker is treated with dignity, or maybe treated as a second-class citizen. whether a young woman who got pregnant at 15, is forced to give birth or in desperation, go to a back-alley for an abortion. whether a president of the united states can be held accountable or whether he'll be above the law. all of this may come down to judge kavanaugh's vote. and that's what's at stake in this nomination. and the stakes are even higher because of the moment we're in and many of us have discussed this. these are unprecedented times. as others have already observed, less than two weeks ago the president's personal lawyer and campaign chairman were each found guilty or pleaded guilty to eight felonies. the president's personal lawyer under oath declared that the
president directed him to commit a federal crime. yet, that same president is race raising to a position to the highest court in our land. a court that very well may decide his legal fate. and yes, that's essentially what confirming judge kavanaugh could mean. so it is important, more important i say than ever, that the american people have transparency and accountability with this nomination. and that's why it is extremely disturbing that senate republicans have prevented this body and most important, the american people, from fully reviewing judge kavanaugh's record and have disregarded just about every tradition and practice that i heard so much about before i arrived in this place. judge kavanaugh, when you and i
met in my office you said with respect to judicial decisions, that rushed decisions are often bad decisions. i agree with you. i agree with you. and when we are talking about who will sit on the supreme court of the united states, i believe your point couldn't be more important. mr. chairman, when judge kavanaugh was nominated in july, he expressed his belief that a judge must be independent, must interpret the law, and not make law. but in reviewing this nominee's background i am deeply concerned that what guides him is not independence or impartiality. it's not even ideology. i would suggest it is not even ideology. what i believe guides him and what his record that we've been able to see shows, is what guides this nominee is partisanship. this nominee has devoted his
entire career to a conservative republican agenda. helping to spearhead a partisan investigation into president clinton. helping george w. bush's legal team insure that every vote was not counted in bush v. gore. helping to confirm partisan judges and enact partisan laws as part of the bush white house. and in all of these efforts, he has shown that he seeks to win at all costs, even if that means pushing the envelope. if we look at his record on the d.c. circuit, and in his recent writings and statements, it is clear that the nominee has brought his political bias to the bench. he has carried out deeply conservative partisan agendas as part, as a judge favoring big business over ordinary americans, polluters over clean air and water and the powerful over the vulnerable. just last year judge kavanaugh praised the dissent in roe v.
wade and ruled against a scared 17-year-old girl seeking to end her pregnancy. he has disregarded the supreme court precedent to argue that undocumented workers weren't really employees under our labor laws. we have witnessed horrific mass shootings from parkland to las vegas, to jacksonville, florida. yet judge kavanaugh has gone further than the supreme court and has written that because assault weapons are quote in common use, assault weapons and high capacity magazines can not be banned under the second amendment. when he was part of an independent counsel investigation into the democratic president, the nominee was dogged in demanding answers. and yet, he has since changed his tune, arguing that presidents should not be investigated or held accountable. a position that i am sure is not lost on this president.
these positions are not impartial, they are partisan. judge neil gorsuch, judge kavanaugh's classmate insisted before this committee that judges are "politicians in robes." i fear that judge kavanaugh's record indicates that is exactly what he may very well be. now, i know members of this committee and the nominee's friends and colleagues have assured us that he's devoted to his family and supportive of his law clerks and volunteers in his community, and i don't doubt that at all. but that's not why we are here. i would rather that we think about this hearing in the contest of the supreme court of the united states and the impact it will have on generations of americans to come, and do we want that court to continue a legacy of being above politics and unbiased or are we prepared
to participate in a process that is tainted and that leaves the american public questioning the integrity of this process? and i'll close by saying this, we have a system of justice that is symbolized by a statue of a woman holding scales. and she wears a blindfold. justice wears a blindfold because we have said in the united states of america, under our judicial system, justice should be blind to a person's status. we have said that in our system of justice, justice should be blind to how much money someone has, to what you look like or who you love, to who your parents are and the language they speak. and every supreme court justice must understand and uphold that ideal. and sir, should those cases become -- come before you, judge kavanaugh, i am concerned whether you would treat every american equally, or instead
show allegiance to the political party and the conservative agenda that has shaped and built your career. i am concerned your loyalty would be to the president who appointed you, and not to the constitution of the united states. these concerns i hope you will answer during the course of this hearing. i believe the american people have a right to have these concerns. i also believe the american public has a right to full and candid answers to the questions that are presented to you during the course of this hearing. i will be paying very close attention to your testimony, and i think you know the american public will be paying very close attention to your testimony. thank you. >> senator graham? >> am i the last person? >> yes. but don't forget, we're going to hear from the nominee and his introducers before you can go home and go to bed.
>> okay, thank you. [ laughter ] i was going to ask you to take me to dinner, but that's not going to happen. >> you know the answer to that. >> that's right. [ laughter ] so to my colleagues, i look forward to working with you. i think you have to be blind as to what's going on here. you know justice briar, i guess you can't say anything. where did he come from? he was ted kennedy's judiciary person. where do you think republicans are going to find a judge? the whole argument is, you can be a conservative republican president but you have to nominate a liberal to be fair to the country that's absurd. where do you think ruth bader ginsburg came from? what groups do y'all use to pick from? this is shaping up to be the hypocrisy hearing, and that's
hard to do in the senate in today's time, to be hypocritical. but let me just point to a few of these things. clinton, it didn't bother anybody for clinton to nominate briar while he was under investigation. we actually did it. didn't bother any of y'all that ted kennedy staff person was his pick. it didn't bother me anybody, because that's who i expect you to pick. this is ridiculous. you're one of the best choices any republican could make. as i said with justice gorsuch, i am glad you're here, because there were days i'm wondering who he would have picked. [ laughter ] and this is a home run from my point of view. let's talk about roe v. wade. who would ever play politics on the campaign trail. what a bastard donald trump is.
until you hear about hillary clinton. february the 3rd, 2016, this is what hillary clinton said. when asked does she have a litmus test for supreme court nominees. i have a bunch of litmus tests, because the next president could get as many as three appointments. and i hope she's right. we go to be sure to preserve roe v. wade. october 2016, we need a supreme court that will stand up on behalf of women's rights. it's important that we not reverse roe v. wade. i want a supreme court that will stick with roe v. wade and a woman's right to choose. i understand where she's coming from. anybody running for president over there, i dare you to disagree with her. you will wind up like i did, getting 1%. [ laughter ] if you even suggest that you
will pick a nominee that's not going to uphold roe v. wade, that's the end of you. but you've figured that out. so this is the way we do politics. this is a big decision called roe v. wade. there are two sides and a bunch of nuances. here's what i know about you. you're going to take it as precedent, you wrote a big book which i'll never read, and you're going to tell us what it takes to overturn long standing precedence. nobody on this side will care if you overturn citizens united. they will cheer you on. somebody will challenge citizens united and you'll say let me hear both sides and i'll tell you whether or not i should uphold it. so hillary clinton, we know where she's at on roe v. wade, and that's just the way it is. now, what other things? executive power. this idea that trump picked you to save him.
amazing concept, since you said what you said back in 1998 and 2008. the bottom line is, when clinton was being impeached, my good friend, and this is true, he is my good friend, on february the 12th, 1999, introduced into the record during the deliberations of the clinton impeachment trial, an article by brett kavanaugh suggesting that you should wait, if there is an indictment, until after the president is out of office. the same concept we're talking about here today, when the shoe was on the other foot, here's what joe said about your thinking. the president is not simply another individual, he is unique. he's the embodiment of the federal government and the head of a political party. if he is to be removed, the entire government likely would suffer, and the military, our economic consequences to the
nation could be severe. these repercussions should not result from the judgment of a single prosecutor, whether it be the attorney general or special counsel, and a single jury. prosecution or nonprosecution of a president is, in sport, inevitable, unavoidably a political act. thus, as the constitution suggests, the decision about the president, while he's in office, should be made for all great national political judgments, and our country should be made in the congress of the united states, according to joe biden. the gift that keeps on giving for us. i think that's pretty hypocritical. during the clinton days, you were right. but all of a sudden you're a danger to the republic. let's talk about -- there's so many -- how many minutes do i have here? the bottom line is -- >> don't exceed what -- >> i will not. guns. somehow you're going to make
sure that congress -- the bottom line on guns, dianne feinstein is a wonderful lady and has passion on this issue about assault weapons. she was able to succeed politically after ten years the gun assault weapons ban expired and it's been hard to get it reestablished. she introduced legislation in 2013 that got 60 no votes. 16 democrats. so i don't believe they see you as a threat to the nation if you come out on the idea that the second amendment has some meaning. in other words, the political process, when it comes to guns, is a work in progress. and i would rather us decide that than you. when it comes to the pillar of virtue comey.
Kavanah-kavanaughJusticeColleaguesUsManWordsCourtBenchLandBackingLaw-studentsLaw-clerkscheck in with the web special. take a tour of germany state by state on d. w. dot com. this is the dublin news live from berlin a major victory for president trump as brett kavanaugh is confirmed as a u.s. supremes court judge the eyes are fifty. the nays are forty eight vice president mike pence reading out the tight results of a divisive senate vote both republicans and democrats believe the controversy surrounding kavanagh's appointment has fired up their base ahead of crucial midterm
elections. also on the program a prominent saudi journalist enters his country's consulate in turkey and then disappears authorities believe jamal khashoggi who has strongly criticized his country's leadership may have been killed we'll go live to istanbul for the latest . time brazilians go to the polls today in a presidential election plagued by division and control machine clued in the public stabbing of one of the front runners. hello and welcome my name is christopher spring good to have you with us president trump is celebrating a major domestic victory after the republican controlled senate now only voted to confirm his nominee brett kavanaugh as a supreme court justice the move comes after weeks of parties and. in fighting over
accusations of sexual misconduct against the judge his appointment means the supreme court could have a conservative majority for years to come. protesters say it's their court but they're not able to prevent what is happening behind closed doors brett kavanaugh being sworn in as the one hundred fourteenth supreme court justice despite several occasions of sexual misconduct made against a judge the private ceremony took place just hours after the senate voted to confirm him on this vote the ayes are fifty the nays are forty eight the nomination of brit m. cavanaugh of maryland to be an associate justice of the supreme court of the united states is confirmed the vote was split almost entirely along party lines republicans voted in favor democrats against senator joe manchin of west virginia
was the lone democrat to support such kavanagh no republican voted against him this was not a political vote i don't like political votes i cannot get there are but everything i could call him from a. young boy. i was there until ten thirty morning to read everything i just couldn't. stop republican lisa murkowski had planned to vote no but then simply abstained and no would have resulted in a hung vote as a republican colleague steve daines was not in the senate yesterday to tip the balance in kavanagh's favor he was attending his daughter's wedding in a gallery. capitol police officers arrested several protesters in front of the supreme court well kavanah was sworn in the demonstrators for a few areas the man accused of sexual assault by three different women now a source in the nation's highest court. no university professor dr christine basie ford had testified in front of congress that cavanagh
assault to turn high school but a subsequent f.b.i. investigation failed to prove a claims. those who believe ford's testimony now hope to punish the republicans in the november midterm elections. and in the studio with me now touching bucca us affairs specialist with the aspen institute here in berlin tyson thanks for coming in i just want to pick up on that last point of all report the democrats hoping to punish the republicans in november as midterm elections what what sort of impact do you think this whole cabin on nomination saga might have all national action let's start with the energy that you see on the street there i mean you see protests throughout the country not just in washington very energized very angry motivated base it's reminiscent of the tea party present protests against obamacare in two thousand and ten which did lead to what they call a red wave that republican takeover of the house and major wins in the senate were
three weeks out though from the election and just to remind all of us three weeks out from the twenty sixteen election was about the time that the access hollywood tape was released so these three weeks are going to be a long time three weeks ago we were talking about the anonymous op that is the new york times and the chaos in the white house so we don't really know what effect it will have they only say one week in politics is a very long time let's turn to president trump a significant victory for him on the mystic scene how very significant it's enormously significant he has now named two supreme court justices he is consult. david a firm conservative majority on the court there are really no swing votes on the court anthony kennedy type or a sandra day o'connor connor type on the court the expectation now is that justice roberts could play that swinging role to preserve the credibility of the institution but it's an enormous win for conservatives and you know with kevin or now. as you as you mention the republicans have firm control of the supremes kota
we are we now looking at decades of conservative rulings or is judge kavanaugh going to surprise us if everything stays as it is now with nine supreme court justices we're looking at a very firm conservative court for decades to come but there are many questions here one that some democrats have raised especially in the face is whether or not none supreme court justice is actually necessary you could eliminate two supreme court justice is and have a seven just the supreme court that has been the case in the past you could add supreme court justices none of the number of the justices in the supreme court is written into the constitution so that congress actually has a lot of power here and the effect of the american arland delay and these to enact ments has really energized people to think about what the supreme court should really look like and just to pick up on the second part of my question you think judge kevin or is going to be from the conservative as we've been expecting or is he going to surprise i think it's no doubt that he's going to be very conservative
he's been vetted by the federalist society he's been he's a decades long track record which has been really hardened and proven to be consistently conservative they are trying not to the conservatives the republicans not to make the mistakes of the seventy's and eighty's to nominate supreme court justices who then track liberal and. there is also a suggestion that you know the supreme court could possibly now in the years to come work against the partisan divide in the sense that you now have four liberal justices facing five conservative justices so it'll be for. them too for the liberal justices to achieve anything they will need to reach across the aisle their has for the past twenty years thirty years there has been a light conservative majority on the supreme court those liberals have tried a charm offensive on people like justice kennedy and sandra day o'connor to pull them over to their side but the real question we should be asking is why is that with all these cases bush v gore citizens united over marriage equality the
obamacare case all these cases voting rights that it's a five to four decision in the credibility of the court is based on consensus building why are we having these cut barely majority decisions being made in the supreme court that is hurting its credibility so in fact it is reflecting the partisan divide somewhat yes ok. many thanks times from the aspen institute. and we move on now to turkey where suspicions are growing that a prominent saudi arabian journalist may have been killed inside the saudi consulate in stamboul u.s. space jamal khashoggi a major critic of the saudi leadership and to the consulate last tuesday to secure documents for his forthcoming marriage saudi officials say he then left the building but he has not been seen since the turkish official who's unnamed has been quoted as saying the
a fifteen men team came from saudi arabia arabia to kill. the saudis have dismissed that accusation. and we're going to cross to istanbul now get the latest from our correspondent there you leon you know what more do we know about this mysterious case would have took police been telling us. well so far we have a media reports relying on these anonymous police sources and nothing more so to say that's not been confirmed yet but according to these reports turkish authorities believe that jamal was killed inside the saudi consulate that it was a pre-planned murder as you mentioned a fifteen member team came from saudi arabia specifically for this and the debt body was later moved out of the consulate building as i said everything is still unconfirmed we're waiting for the turkish authorities to officially table the evidence and the checks present add on is also expected to comment on the issue
what we do know is that jamal. disappeared about five days ago not about but five days ago on tuesday around lunchtime when he entered after he entered the saudi consulate as you mentioned to obtain certain documents related to his upcoming wedding his fiance a turkish lady waved him goodbye outside of the consulate waiting for his quick return but he never really emerged and tell us a little bit more about. why might he have been a target from the saudi perspective. well jamal khashoggi is not known to be a long time dissident rather to the contrary he was a man very well connected to the saudi establishment he worked as an editor for saudi news media outlets he was a former advisor to an x. intelligence chief over there but over the past year he became increasingly
critical of the saudi leadership naming the king crown prince. of bin. he criticized for example the saudis a crackdown on female rights activists who were complaining for women's right to drive cars for example he has been living in cell fix self-imposed exile in the united states since last year and he was a contributor for example for the washington post opinion piece a section where he wrote repeatedly about politics about the war in vietnam and other controversial issues ok you know many thanks for that. we're going to take a look now at some of the other stories making news around the world pope francis theorised further investigation into the sexual abuse scandal surrounding the former archbishop of washington theodore mccarrick the pope himself has faced and
i'm president you called to resign over the affair from a form of vatican ambassador to the u.s. he accused the pontiff of having actively protected mccarrick from prosecution. the international police agency interpol has made a formal request to china for information about its missing president main hallway disappeared during a trip to his home country last month hong kong newspaper says mang was arrested as part of a crackdown on corruption. people in brazil go to the polls today and what's being described as the country's most polarized presidential election since the end of military rule in one thousand nine hundred eighty five leading the opinion polls is a man some call the tropical trouble far right candidate will not know who is riding a wave of anger over widespread corruption and crime his main rival is leftist candidate ferdinando had done the former mayor of san pablo results are expected later today. it's the first right to voting in brazil's presidential election
after a run up it certainly wasn't short on drama. far right front runner she. was stopped by late campaigning leftist former president louis think that the to silva in prison for corruption was eventually reeled in eligible to stand his replacement for nanda how dad was confirmed as a candidate just three weeks ago. his comments about minorities and women had him hitting the headlines long before his stabbing and he's confident he will win. this this is the final push each of you who have been convinced to vote for me managed to get out and win your vote in a half more then we'll settle it in the first right and the first strident and then at the end of the month on the twenty eighth everyone can go to the beach and have a barbecue because we want to vote again leftist challenger how dad was not his
party's first choice support for him relies on the popularity of his mentor the jailed former president the candidate has warned voters not to be swayed by paulson and will use an empty figure who hasn't contributed for thirty years and he's going to contribute to brazil night the two main candidates could not be more different their visions on key issues such as pension reform and labor laws are polar opposites it's expected that both. will face each other again in a runoff vote on october twenty eighth. a lucky fuse yes has managed to snap up a version of bank sees best known works go with balloons for just over a million pounds or at least that's what that person thought. moments after the auction members of the action how much an alarm sounded in part of the painting disappeared into a shredder hidden in its frame this photo later appearing on banks instagram page
with the caption going going gone. and it's unclear by the way whether that painting is now worth even more money a quick reminder of our top story for you a political victory for u.s. president trump as the u.s. senate narrowly confirms his supremes court nominee brett kavanaugh this after an f.b.i. report fails to corroborate accusations of sexual misconduct you're watching the news in berlin more from us as ever at the top of the hour up next here on g.w. bush's leadership. i'm not laughing at. them but nice and laughing with you that you haven't been deep into german culture. predictive grammar they own you it's all that.
Well-jamal-khashoggiJournalistCountryConsulateSaudiTurkeyProgramAuthoritiesLatestElectionPollsLeadership