He graduated and earned his degree in 1968. He was first elected to the city in 1972 and shared the Foreign Relations and Senate Judiciary committee. He was sworn in we want to turn back to what joe biden said on the senate floor. It is my view that particularly if the reality of a divided government during the time of great change at the Court Continues in the next administration, future confirmations must be conducted differently than the precedings ones. Mr. President , the president s intentions on the existing process which exploded during the thomas nomination fight make restoration of what came before judge thomas nomination even if it was desirable, a practical impossible bill. Having said that, mr. President , we face one immediate question, can our Supreme Court confirmation process sow discord and bitterness in an Election Year . Mr. President , history teaches us this is extremely unlikely. Some of our nations most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in president ial Election Years. A bruising confirmation fight over roger taunys nomination in 1836. The senates refusal to confirm four nominations by president ler in 1844, the single vote rejection of nominees badger and black by lame duck president s filmore and buchanan in the mid19th century and narrow approval of justices lamar and fuller in 1888. These are just some examples of these fights in the 19th september try. Overall, where one in four Supreme Court nominations has been the subject of significant opposition. The figure raises to 12 when such nominations are acted upon n president ial Election Years. Host that was in june, 1992 and 18 years later, that is where we are at. Bob the process is even worse. Back then they didnt get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. This is a partisan environment when you have a new Supreme Court nomination and now we are so close to the election and now it is even more charged based on racial unrest in this country on top of a pandemic and we were headed for a bumpy ride to the election and not got bumpyier. Host we are hearing remarks from bidens remarks. How is it playing out in todays environment . Susan part of the ongoing partisan battle whether the senate should take up a Supreme Court nominee. At the end of 2016 when republicans did not take up the rland nominee and leader mcconnell often cited the biden rule. There is no such thing as the biden rule but what he was referring to was speech we listened to from joe biden in 1992 when he talked about the difficulty and advised against taking up Supreme Court nominees during an Election Year. It definitely played in to that decision in 2016. And of course, now we hear it amended by the majority leader, Mitch Mcconnell, in that this only should apply if the parties are opposite in the white house and the senate. Otherwise, you should move ahead with the nominee and if you look at the statistics for such nominations, that does bear out. If it is the same party, they move ahead with the nomination but opposite party, thats when you end up not taking the nomination. The reason is, its a political calculation. Democrats would be doing, i believe, the exact same thing right now if they had the opportunity to fill this pretty rare vacancy on the Supreme Court to share the outcome for decades to come. And thats what republicans are doing, a political calculation. Each party makes it and thats what you heard in bidens speech in 1992. Thats what you are hearing from republicans in the senate. Host Georgetown University law school in march of 2016, about a month after the death of justice scalia, this from then Vice President joe biden. Let me set the record straight, if the president consults and cooperates with the senate or moderates his selections, then his nominees may join my support as did justice contendy and justice souter, end of quote. I made it clear that i would go forward with the confirmation process as chairman even a few months before a president ial election. If a nominee chosen with the advice and not merely the consent of a senate, just as the constitution requires. My consistent advice, the president s of both parties including this president has been that we should engage fully in the constitutional process of advice and consent. And my consistent understanding of the constitution them is the senate must do so as well, period. They have an obligation to do so. Because there is no vacancy after the thomas confirmation, we cant know what the president and senate might have done. But heres what we do know. Every time as the Ranking Member or chairman of the Judiciary Committee, i was responsible for eight justices and nine total nominees to the Supreme Court, more than i hate to say this, anyone alive. [laughter] vicePresident Biden i cant be that all. Some supported it, a few voted against. And during all that time, every nominee was greeted by committee members. Every nominee got a committee hearing. Every nominee got out of the Committee Even if they didnt have sufficient votes to pass within the committee, because i believe the senate says, the senate must advise and consent. And every nominee including Justice Kennedy in an Election Year, got an upanddown vote. Host that is then Vice President joe biden during the fight over judge garland that never received a hearing or a vote on the senate floor. Take us back to what you heard from the Vice President four years ago. Bob any time that a politician and he says i have been absolutely clear, when a politician says there, there is murkyness. E said advice, consent and selection of moderation. How much did the Obama Administration advise with the republican consent and how much moderation was merrick garland. Many people said was he was a moderation. But this is politics that susan was talking about and it was an Election Year and Mitch Mcconnell decided that he was not going to move on that nomination and not going to be hearings on that nomination. That was backed by his Committee Chairman at the time, chuck grassley. Therefore, the nomination didnt go through. A lot of people thought the republicans would bend. There is a different timing. That was in february and march. Here we are much later in the Election Year and thats where democrats are certainly pointing that out and the differences. Both sides are having to adjust and clarify what they have said over the last four years and now obviously going back all the way for biden, decades on what he has said and he has said a lot because he served six terms in the senate and two terms as Vice President. What he has said on Supreme Court nomination has varied a bit as it has for republicans, too. Host we will come back to the Supreme Court nominations. Joe biden ran for the u. S. Senate when he was 29. You have to be 30 years old to be sworn in. And shortly after ta, his wife and daughter killed just before christmas and back in 2006, we sat down to talk with him about that tragedy. VicePresident Biden they were Christmas Shopping headed back toward my home in the station wagon. No one knows but pulled out of an intersection in a semirural. Tractor trailer came down the hill and broadsided them. I never wanted to know and i didnt want to pursue if anybody made a mistake. My wife and daughter were on one side of the car and killed immediately. My two boys were on the other side of the car and thank god for my vol up tear maremen and used the jaws of life to get my sons out. My whole career is sort of i owe the volunteer firemen, they saved my life, home in a fire and incredible people. And that happened on december 18. My sons were badly injured. My son beau was in a body cast, both legs and arms. Fully recovered thank god and hunter had a frurd skull, was banged up as well, but he recovered fully and both grown men and i am proud. Host where were you . I was here, using senator byrd office interviewing perspective staff and i got the call while i was doing that and had some young person call me and say there was a slight accident and young woman, volunteer from the campaign. I just knew. Said she dead, isnt she . No, no, senator. But she was. Ook, you have been through a lot of this yourself in your personal life. And we both know tens of thousands of people going through what you and i have been through without the kind of support you and i have had. But it does make you realize how many truly courageous people are out there. Host 2006 interview. Susan, that clearly shaped his early Senate Career and for a while he considered stepping down not taking the seat. Susan he was sworn in the hospital rooms with their sons there. It defined him as a politician and continues to define him as a candidate for president. As it probably would anybody to go through an experience like that to lose his wife and daughter and his two sons grateful injured while he was taking office. It absolutely defined him. And the way it continues to define him now and make him a candidate that is more human to voters. You often hear politicians are trying to show their relateable side when they run for office. You watch the Campaign Videos at the conventions and hear the testimonials about them and certainly President Trump and his campaign are trying to humanize him more. I think the reason he does stems back to that absolutely horrible tragedy that started right at the beginning of his own political career. Host bob, your thoughts as you listen to that. Bob it is an emotional interview and he was in pain then and still in pain now. You are never going to forget and it is how you relate to life and others going through tragedy and someone who wanted to run for president and ran several times for president , you want to show empathy. And he really has an ability to do that. He has flaws as a candidate. He has made a lot of gaffes but he shows empathy and relates to people and thats why he won the nomination this time around and he is leading the race now, long way to go. But i do this think those experiences, tragedy in his family life, beau passing away, it has a pro found effect on anybody and it did on joe biden. Host you mentioned campaigns, he has run on three separate occasions but first announcing ack in 1987 and we were in wilmington, delaware. VicePresident Biden 15 years ago we said the key to restoring confidence in our traditions and institutions was public first who would stand up and tell the American People exactly what they saw. And what i said that day in 1972, i mean to be that candidate and with the griss of god tuppo of the American People, i mean to be that kind of president. Host susan, why did he run and why did his campaign flame out . Susan he was compelling at the time and exciting candidate. He shook up that race getting in as someone young and compelling from delaware. I think he probably could have gone pretty far in that primary, but he was derailed and the issue was about a speech he delivered that people accused him of plagiarizing. And that ended it and he returned to his perch on the Senate Judiciary committee where he had become chairman. A lot of people had thought he would be an exciting new person to run for person and shake you sudden ace and all of a it was over based on the accusation that he plagiarized his speech. Host we were with joe biden in New Hampshire in april of 1987, one of those town Hall Meetings and house parties and he had this exchange. Lets watch and get your reaction. [indiscernible question] vicePresident Biden i went to law school on a full academic scholarship and only one in my class. And first year in law school i didnt want to go to law school and ended up in the bottom 2 3 and i decided to stay and went back to law school. And i won the International Moot Court competition and outstanding student in the Political Science department. I graduated from three degrees. And i would be delighted to sit down and compare my i. Q. To yours. Im not questioning your i. Q. When people are legitimated to office in recent years indiscernible] vicePresident Biden it seems to me if you can speak you are a liability to the Democratic Party. Heartless ave become tech noc rmp arch tmp s. We have never as a party moved nation by 14 points [indiscernible] we got involved and no one asked dr. King what his legislative agenda. Womens movement did not move with a Constitutional Movement but marched to change attitudes and this party better understand full well its about time we change our attitude and we begin to change the attitudes of americans about what their responsibilities are to the poor and responsibilities are to other people and what our responsibility in the world is and that requires change in attitudes. Frank, you will see my 15point plans and 19point position papers and will make a position. Who knows more about Foreign Policy, gary or me and Dick Gephardt or i know more about economic policy. But ultimately frank, this country needs a leader and leader change attitudes. In the wake of ronald reagan, the only thing he knew how to do was the one thing that is now devalued hat is being so much. Susan now that he is running again at his age its not as big of an issue and not have come up. But you heard him on the defense really talking to the report he and that was a long and very defensive sort of speech there he gave. And he does that a little bit now on the campaign trail. There are clips of him going at it with reporters who are just asking standard questions but he gets very defensive. And almost seems to be on the attack a little bit against the reporter. And that is about biden at least in my experience covering him, he does respond that way when he is on the defensive. When he feels like the question is not a fair one and good at filling in and filibustering and getting defensive at the same time. And thats what you saw in that clip. Host lets turn to another chapter as the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee and set the stage for Clarence Thomas and the entry of anita hill. Bob this was a very controversial time during the 1990s and Clarence Thomas was viewed as extremely conservative, but an africanamerican republican. And then you had really the circus atmosphere of anita hill testifying claiming that thomas had said things that he adamantly said he did not. And went lieu the rocky nomination process and joe biden got criticism from the right and the left and it continues to dog him to this day of how he handled the hearing and this was one of the defining moments of that Political Year and it was something that had repercussions for year to come. Host lets take you back to october of 1991, the Senate Judiciary committee and the question of what evidence should or should not be allowed. VicePresident Biden it is appropriate to ask can professor hill anything any member wishes ask her, to plum the depths of her credibility. It would be appropriate to ask her about mr. Singleton. But it is inappropriate to represent what mr. Singleton says via an affidavit. There is a distinction. So you can ask anything you want and ask her what santa claus said or didnt say. Whether she spoke to him or not, but its inappropriate to introduce an affidavit from santa claus prior to every member in this committee having an opportunity to check it out for the following reasons. We may find out that santa claus is not real. Therefore, it may not be very relevant whether or not santa claus said something or not. We are all lawyers on this committee with one or two exceptions there is a zinc shon between a, being able to ask a question, between being able to ask a question to determine the credibility of a witness and epresenting what an individual said they said or said they offered or said they thought about the motivation of the witness. There is a zinchings. You can ask anything you want about credibility. You cannot represent via an affidavit or a sworn statement or a statement as to what the individual being asked about thinks. If that is the case, ask the committee to bring that witness forward. And then we will sit down and renegotiate with among ourselves and with the white house, how many witnesses we are going to half. Host as you look at that, members of the Judiciary Committee, they were all men. And that came up again more recently in the nomination of supreme naugh to the court. Bob republicans then subsequently changed the makeup of their side of the Judiciary Committee after t