Host good afternoon, all. I am miles coleman. On behalf of the charleston, columbia and greenville, South Carolina chapters of the society, i am delighted to welcome you to our event today. We are excited to be hosting senator graham and a moment. Good afternoon and welcome. Let me make a couple of brief housekeeping announcements and we will get right down to what we are here for. First, we have a pride for cle credit in South Carolina. If you would like credit for attending this event, i ask you submit a record of your attendance. Use the q a function and send a message that will be viewable only by me has your name and South Carolina bar number. About halfway through, i will ask you to do it again to make sure you are still with us. And at the conclusion, i will ask you one last time. I also want to very briefly preview a couple of upcoming events. We would love to see you there. Next week on thursday, we will be having a virtual roundtable. Next week on thursday at 2 00, we will be having a virtual roundtable between three attorneys general. South carolina, texas and nebraska. Its going to be a fun event and i would love to see you there. The week after that, september 14, Ilia Schapiro will be with us live in columbia to preview the Upcoming Supreme Court term and his forthcoming book, supreme disorder. A couple weeks after that, we will host judge jeff sutton. And ed welland. They will discuss their book. Nobody came today to hear me give announcements and i know you are excited to hear from senator graham. If we have ever had a speaker truly needs no introduction, it is he. Lets jump right into it. Let me lead into the first question with a bit of a windup. Since its founding, the Federalist Society is been deeply concerned with the role of the federal judiciary. One of the founding principles is that in our constitutional system, it is emphatically the role of the judiciary to say not with the law is, but what it should be. One way we advance that principle is by selecting and elevating judges who share that. Originally under your leadership, the senate surpassed 200 confirmations a President Trumps judicial nominee and for the first time and i believe more than 40 years, every vacant Circuit Court of appeals seat has been filled. What does this mean . What does this achievement mean for the future of the federal judiciary . Sen. Graham number one, think you very much for having me and thank you very much for having me and honoring me. I really appreciate what you do for the cause of good judging, giving us input about nominees. I would say to efforts to prohibit people from being a member of your society and still be a judge, i will stop that with all of my might. That is ridiculous. You can be a member of the aba and any in good standing. Its ok to be a conservative and a lawyer. The bottom line is what does it mean . It means that President Trump has done more than anybody in my lifetime to reshape the federal judiciary to a centerright judiciary. By focusing on filling every vacancy. Chuck grassley was the chairman for the first two years of President Trumps turn. 53 court of appeals, two Supreme Court nominees, and we have 70 District Court vacancies and 49 nominations. We will probably do 30. We have done 120 on my watch. We have made it a priority. Mitch mcconnell deserves a lot of credit. We are in the appointment is in us in the senate. I can tell you that for all of who campaign on our behalf and say that judges matter, trump heard you, Mitch Mcconnell heard you, and we have delivered. This is what i would urge you to think about your four more years of this, four more years of taking Circuit Court judges. Four more years we can flip more district circuits. The bottom line is there will be at least a couple vacancies between 2020 and 2024 and we will have a chance to fill those as President Trump can get reelected and we hold the senate. Think about that. Think about how satisfied you must be as a Federalist Society member with President Trump and the republican senate. Thank you for this acknowledgment. The bottom line for me is one of the big issues for the nation is what kind of judiciary you want to have and that will loom large on the ballot. There will be an effort by the Democratic Party to expand the number of judges on the Supreme Court. They are openly talking about that and numerous groups are trying to expand it to 92 dilute the centerright agenda we have created expand it to nine two dilute the centerright agenda we have created. I just think this has been one of the great accomplishments for President Trump, myself and Mitch Mcconnell. A lot is at stake in 2020. Host you mentioned some of the statistics, the numbers of judges. In the eight years of president obamas administration, total of 55 federal Appellate Court seats were filled. That is over eight years. Thus far, and less than four years, 53 seats have been filled by the current administration, so nearly on pace. What does that tell us about the priority, the amount of effort and emphasis that leader mcconnell and yourself and others have placed . Sen. Graham it tells you everything you need to know. That in one term we have done as much as obama did in two terms. That Mitch Mcconnell and myself see picking judges is one of the most important functions of the United States senate. And the presidency of the United States. We had two conventions and almost nothing was said about protest and disorder in the streets. The Republican Convention focused heavily on law and order and supporting victims of crime. What you talk about determines what your priorities are. I think we have done a good job of proving through our actions that when we talk about making the judiciary interpret the law rather than making it from the bench, we have delivered and i hope people remember that. Host let me ask you as well about a particular moment in the past couple of years. On september 27, 2018, right in the middle of the contentious confirmation hearings for judge Brett Kavanaugh, now a justice. On that day, delivered remarks at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary committee that some observers have identified as crucial to his eventual confirmation, and that Ilia Schapiro has identified your greatest moment. Talk with us a little bit about that moment and the emotion and passion that was present in the room. Sen. Graham why did people listen to what i had to say . I voted for sotomayor and kagan. Nobody would have cared if i got mad about Brett Kavanaugh, just one more person. But i had something that nobody else had. The ability to look the democrats in the eye and say what the hell are you doing . I would have never done this for sotomayor and kagan. You want to keep this seat open, you dont care how qualified he is. You want to paint the picture for 2020 and you were dumb enough to say that. What got me going is i have known Brett Kavanaugh for almost 20 years. I know him to be one of the most capable people any republican president would nominate to the Supreme Court. Here is the one thing that united the party. Brett kavanaugh was the private secretary of president george w. Bush. He met his wife working for the bush administration. President bush was on the phone day in and day out, calling republican senators, vouching for him. So you had the bush group, the trump group, the mccain group and romney group. All of us believed that anybody on the republican side would have put Brett Kavanaugh on their short list. So what happened was we saw this as an attack on us, conservatism. We saw what they were doing to brett, crossing a line of wanting power too much. I saw it in terms of an offense against a friend and a betrayal of what i had tried to do. Since clarence thomas, bork, alito went through this every republican conservative is a racist, blah blah blah. Why is it always our people . What i said that day i meant, that i looked everyone in the eye and said i never would have done this to your nominees. I would not have picked sotomayor or kagan but they were qualified. Brett kavanaugh is as qualified as anyone ever nominated to the Supreme Court and was a good man and what we were doing to him is unconscionable. This is why that matters. If they had succeeded in driving him away and he had withdrawn, who would be next on our side . What young conservative man or woman would want to throw their hat in the ring go through this . You have to remember the accusations were five, three of them anonymous and two of the three proved to be absolute manufactured. What happened to dr. Ford was real somewhere sometime, but im confident that Brett Kavanaugh had nothing to do with it. You were talking about a party in high school that no one could validate the claim. We are talking about how may beers he had while in high school, at a Party Without a date and location and it was just a complete low point in my career in the senate. I spoke up, as i am right now. The more i think about it, the more pissed i get. Because a lot was at stake. If they had succeeded in doing this, they would have changed the people who would come forward to be judge because people will be driven away. Anything they could do we would wind up doing. So i think the best thing that happened here is that he made it onto the court and i think they will be less likely to do this to the next nominee because it blew up in their face. And i think it affected senate races in that cycle, and i want to let you know that when i voted for sotomeyer and kagan, it did not make me less conservative. I followed the traditions and qualifications, not ideology, and now after kavanaugh, everything has changed and thank god he is on the bench. And to the extent i have motivated people on our side to stand up for him, i am glad. From my point of view the real hero here as much as anybody is susan collins, because she had the courage to evaluate Brett Kavanaugh as a judge and human being and found him to be highly qualified. Host let me follow up on that. You mentioned robert work, justice thomas, justices ginsburg, sotomayor and kagan. You said it seems like now all that has changed. So let me toss out a couple statistics and then get your reaction. Justice ginsburg confirmed 1993 by a vote of 9630 and spoiler alert, the margins are going to get narrower as we go. 963. Spoiler alert, the margins are going to get narrower as we go. Sotomayor in 2009, confirmed 6831. Justice gorsuch, 2017, 5445. Justice kavanaugh, 5048. The trend there, it doesnt take a statistician to see the increasingly narrow margins. Is the continuation of that trend inevitable or can it be reversed . Is it like a door that only swings in one direction . Sen. Graham pandoras box has been opened and read kavanaugh showed how far it would go. Brett kavanaugh showed how far it would go. But harry reid did more to unleash these horses than anybody in recent memory. Changing the rules to a majority vote in the Circuit Court of appeals. When they had power, they went away from the 60 vote requirement to 50 votes for circuit and District Courts. The bottom line here is i think youre going to have more ideologically driven nominees because you dont need to reach across the aisle and pick up a vote like you used to. I dont see the rules changing anytime soon. We had to change the rules for gorsuch to stop his filibuster twice. And i would say as of gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, nobody can look you in the eye and say they are not equally qualified to sotomayor and kagan. So the point is that conservative nominees have been treated critically unfairly. It all crescendoed with Brett Kavanaugh. When harry reid change the rules, it change the entire nominating process. What i fear over time is that if we dont turn it down a notch, that good men and women will be more reluctant to be a judge. Because of what you have to go through. I will say this i think Brett Kavanaugh having survived was a great thing because it shows that these tactics did not work. Host we want to be respectful of your time. Can i give you one last question . If it is not an intrusion on your schedule. I know you have other things and we dont want to keep you from it. Earlier in remarks, you mentioned more than 300 special Interest Groups and a few of their colleagues have voiced support for the idea of expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court. This would not be the first time it was ever discussed. I think it was a century ago during the new deal, there was a Court Packing plan, from my recollection, about the switch in time that saved nine is the phrase. There has been a discussion once before at least, but it has never been done. It would be unprecedented. Do you sense that there is any actual support . Is there any likelihood . Sen. Graham look at chuck schumer. He is probably going to get challenged by aoc in the primary. Lets talk about some of the things the democrats and the house are openly talking about. Making d. C. Estate. A state. Alexandria was ceded to virginia so people in the greater d. C. Area could vote. There is a way to enfranchise people in the d. C. Area without making it a state. They are talking about making puerto rico a state and doing away with the electoral college. South carolina, we will become far less relevant. But one of the most egregious things they are talking about is expanding the number of judges so they can dilute the centerright majority we have created over time. And from 20202024 there will be two, maybe three vacancies, but they are trying to reshape the way our Founding Fathers created america to their advantage. Theyre trying to do away with the electoral college, to reshape what a judge does and the number of people serving on the Supreme Court. They are trying to add states in a manner i think is overwhelmingly partisan. And if we lose the house and republicans lose the senate and biden wins, i think most of what i just described has a better than 5050 chance of coming true because they will try to change the rules of the senate to do away with the legislative requirement and filibuster. Schumer and all of leadership in the senate will be under enormous pressure from the left. So a lot is at stake. My opponent, we will talk about where he is at versus where i am at later on. But today is about the Federalist Society. Today is about thanking me i want to thank you for helping me make sure we have good information about judicial nominees and making you where to south carolinians how much judges matter in our lives and taking a stand for conservative judicial philosophy. Which is absolutely a great thing to be doing, you should not be ashamed of it. Any efforts to blackball your group will be met with fierce opposition by me and many others. So thanks. Host thank you. I know we have already kept you longer than i originally asked for. We appreciate your time and leadership in washington. Thank you again for joining us today. Sen. Graham thank you all. Host thanks to senator graham. We will turn to our panel. I introduce them in just a moment. By the magic of technology, there they are. Popping back up, on muting their microphones. It is a distinguished panel. If you struggle with an inferiority complex, you do not want to host a panel like this because i will tell you they have accomplished a thing or two. Starting with mark champa, from graduated from Brigham Young university, valedictorian of his class. From harvard, he worked with judge gorsuch. Previously was the principal at the doj office of legal policy, where among other things he personally prepared over 100 nominees for confirmation by the senate and in the process earned the attorney generals distinguished service award. Professor Brian Fitzpatrick has an undergraduate degree in Chemical Engineering from notre dame, graduated from harvard law school, clerked for justice scalia. He taught at nyu school of law and is currently at Vanderbilt Law School and has received all kinds of awards and published all kinds of books. Lastly, jd from notre dame with judge sykes on the seventh circuit and he served as subcommittee counsel and chief counsel and legislative director for senator flake, as Deputy Assistant ag and currently as chief nomination counsel for the Senate Judiciary committee. So if ever there was a group of folks who know a thing or two about our topic today, judicial nominations and confirmations, this is them. They know a lot about it. Let me start with my first question. Mike, let me direct this to you. It is quite possible that a number of our viewers are not familiar with some of the procedural, mechanical steps that take place even before a nominee is announced. Can you give us a 30 second view of what that process looks like . I would be happy to. Mark can fill in what i miss. It starts off when a vacancy is announced. So a