Court. It is not always an edifying experience but a mean and ugly fight at times and we know how it turned out, judge kavanaugh now Justice Kavanaugh was narrowly confirmed on a largely partyline vote. It was a memorable site so why did you to choose to retell this story in book links for . Guest we were both involved in the kavanaugh confirmation battle. She was working on the confirmation and covering it as a journalist. We knew we had a good story here and knew that we had good access and we wanted to lay it down and get the record down and so we interviewed more than 100 people, including the president and various other people and several Supreme Court justices people in the senate and we are so glad we did because this was something that gripped the nation last year and in the chaos of it and in the moment it is worth reflecting on after the dust settled about lessons to learn from it and what were the things that happened behind the scenes and were glad we got to do it. Guest absolutely. For me in particular having clerked for Justice Thomas i saw the replay of the events from the types of attacks we been going on before the confirmation got crazy to the allegations followed a similar pattern and i knew the next phase wasnt one where the losing side went home and said i cannot keep them off the court. What weve seen is the nation has gone from the time people who watched it and lived it in real time said they believed thomas over hill and thats men, women, black or white and theres been a constant drumbeat ever since then of trying to rewrite that narrative and reimagine that story. I thought it was important to just make sure the facts are out there to get ahead of the revisionist history so we could learn from and probably learned from both sides of the ugliness of the battle. American people dont want to see this level of viciousness and vitriol in the future confirmations and i know we certainly dont. Putting in context its a horrific thing to go to on all sides and how its part of the confirmation process that we have seen and been able to go through the history and going back hundreds of words but more particularly in recent decades is helpful. Host you to talk to a lot of people and theres a lot of reporting in this group but what would someone follow this news but did not delve into it what would you learn or what did you learn that was new and recounting this story . Guest so many of things but its hard to pick out just a few. One of the exciting things to learn was to get to see the human side of the way that the kavanaugh family was dealing with the process so its everything from the fun and exciting things in the lead up to the nomination and some fun stories of how both he had tried to sneak into the white house and be careful that he did not even let his own wife or family know after the president had told he would get the nomination and cut that secret of how Ashley Kavanaugh and her girls had to escape their house and there was already a media stick out in front and the new people were at the other house with a slowmotion chase of Thomas Hardiman where there was to be followed and felt they needed to whatever the result was even before they would be nominated would leave the house and managed to seek out the backyard so the media will not tell if they were there or not. Its fun stories like that but also seeing how these allegations affected them in real life and how you go through having to live in this community where a lot of the families involved in the people went to school with are still there and is a local story as well as a national one and you got the girls going to school and working through that a lot of support we saw from their friends on both sides of the aisle and neighbors. Ashley kavanaugh is a town manager so as this is going before her husband is nominated shes hosting a july 4th party and right in the middle of the heat of these allegations shes hosting a neighborhood barbecue at their house. Its so amazing what this will cement the people as they went through and we sign the strength of character it took to survive this level of attack in opposition. Host you do tell a story of perseverance and survival and tough that no one would want to be in the position of the justices and in effect, your whole life or whole career is right before and your under attack during that time. The confirmation process has become an ugly situation seems like the justices view it that way and republicans and democrats view it that way did you come away with any thoughts of what would be this was a bad process and you have thoughts about how the confirmation process could be made different or better . Guest yes, one interesting thing speaking with various Supreme Court justices and whether no one had a confirmation process like this or a few people did but whether you had one that was relatively mild or serious they all loathed the confirmation process and whether these people are appointed by democrats or republicans these are judges who now justice care about the reputation and cared about how they live their lives and have their integrity questioned by people as senators dont show that same integrity is calling for a lot of these people but people say the senators were bad the senate process broke down and thats true. There was after the thomas hearings a procedure set in place precisely to avoid it like this and the way that if you have navigation to make a president ial nominee to be handled discreetly and for reasons not entirely clear senator Dianne Feinstein recommended that process and went through she chose to go through but process breakdown for the first round of hearings went with outbursts from various senators. I understand people being upset about that and there is frustration and how the media handled some of these allegations and whether they showed journalistic integrity and how they reported on the story but its also a case of the court itself which is as the court has become more political in its decisionmaking whether it makes law rather than interpreting the law as it is written that creates a political situation and is not altogether surprising that it becomes the process itself becomes more political. There is some role for the court itself to tamp down some of these actions just by behaving in a less political faction. Host do you what used to be the standard that everyone would say is if the president makes an nomination in that nominee is wellqualified the senate should basically confirm that nominee and that was 30, 35 years ago and i was always set to be the standard so should that be the standard now that bret cannot buy every standard was wellqualified for the job but most of the democrats were not going to vote to confirm him and if you asked them they would say so was mary garland so what is your view . Should it be the old standard or depends on the political makeup of the senate . Guest the old standard has been gone for a long time. By any realistic standards judge robert was absolutely and aggressively qualified for the job they were talking in the 80s. That standard has been abandoned for a one time with and it was abandoned first by the democrats and then we went back and we tell the story injustice on trial that i think it many times republicans were hoping they can return to that you saw clintons nominees, breyer and ginsburg had almost unanimous confirmations and we have seen is its taken a while for republicans to realize that standard has not been followed. Theres frustration pumping from Lindsey Graham who was one of the people who absolutely ascribes to that host and the obamas. Guest but recall his outburst at the final confirmation where he said tell Justice Kagan so the mayor hello because i voted for them and you are not following that standard. Hes frustrated because he would like that to be the standard but that simply is not the standard being followed. I think there should be a qualifications are clearly important but there is a consent role the role senate has to play looking at judicial philosophy as part of that but you take an oath as a senator to uphold the constitution so its incumbent on senators to make sure that someone who will be in the role of a justice of the Supreme Court someone who will uphold the constitution. That clearly means someone who look at the text of the constitution as it is written in that believe they have not an entirely blakes late but a great degree of leeway to play with the constitution. That circumvents our constitutional process. This amendment process and it is not amended by five votes of the justices on the Supreme Court. That is something that is fair game to debate and the politics of personal destruction is where it becomes a real problem that is off the table and im proud that for example during the Merrick Garland confirmation that that is absolutely we can talk about his record and whether the senate wants to proceed to a vote in the way two thirds of the Senate Support companies that have not been confirmed simply because theyve not had a vote is totally a regular way of not having someone confirmed but having an attack like we saw with the camera confirmation and adding the hysteria and the smears that is something i think it should be taken off the table for both sides. Guest we have a story in a book of Merrick Garland being worried that when he was nominated he would be subject to some of these personal character attacks. People are definitely upset with how nomination was handled or rather how it wasnt considered by the senate but he did not receive personal attacks of that nature and was told by friends that i dont thank you have to worry about that at all and they will not do that but there are consequences for how you fight. Its understandable these are hardfought battles and consequences for how you fight it up in his face consequences, some good and bad for how they fought the Merrick Garland situation. By and large with a corset nomination there was a little bit of character assassination the mostly with democrats do was filibuster him but it did not go well for them and they ended up losing the filibuster for sipping Court Justices but it was still within the bounds of senate norms be what you would say keep the senate personal attacks out of the senate. But now army almost a place where almost entirely political. The president makes eight nomination and its always been a he is majority control in the senate the nomination will be confirmed but if not, the situation is where amateurs a new Supreme Court nominee can be confirmed if the other Party Controls the senate. In other words, President Trump were reelected so we talk hypothetical here but if President Trump is reelected and the democrats have control of the senate my guess is it would not confirm another Trump Nominee. Guest looking at the people on his list, i think thats true. Fun fact on the court theres only one member who has been confirmed by the senate of the opposing party. Clarence thomas. That will show you a little bit of the change because even at the level of controversy there is still a democrats who voted for him and rub against voted against but i think the challenges how do we get past that and Justice Scalia we quote him injustice on trial talk about it and he says judges are acting like politicians. It makes sense to have this as a political thing. If the nations top policy agents are being decided by the support how to be expect them not to be tweeted this way. This is why i think it would be a healthy approach for justices across the board should take because what youre doing is looking at the text of law and thats a law passed by democrats or republicans it doesnt matter the content of law will often have justices who embrace regionalism and were not like the results of the loss they are enforcing but feel like they are having to keep closely to the tax. Those are our elected representatives and that the constitution plays. We all know it will be sausage but it has to happen in the political process. Judges are supposed to be insulated from that and have a political check and that is because theres an idea that what theyre doing is not politics but law. Keep the judges doing that and we dont have to fight as much about their personal beliefs on the controversial issues that should not be relevant but are you following the law closely and let Congress Passed the laws you want and youll get the lot you want in your country. Host i like that in theory. Its a matter of great controversy and how it plays o out. Congress passed the obamacare act and there was a moved over to overturn it in the courts with a big fight and the Voting Rights acts extension was almost passed unanimously in congress in 2006 and then essentially overturned by this report on a fivefour vote. Guest this is because the constitution is one of the laws, its still the supreme law of the land that they have to include but in general when you talk about interpreting a statute you have to keep closely to the text the statute and thats why i take issue with overturning obamacare because you dont maintain it by rewriting the statute and you dont get to rewrite the words of thought even if it means rewriting so you can avoid the constitutional problem but thats the thats the second case was almost more of an explicit writing of the statute but reinterpreting it penalties is a similar [inaudible] but we digress from kavanaugh. Host lets talk about the mystery woman, christine ford. There were rumors about her in the middle of the hearings i believe and apparently as you said Diane Feinsteins office had gotten this complaint at some point her name came up and there was a long procedure about which he or would she not testify and came and testified and a lot of people who watched it on television said my goodness shes got a very vivid memory of a painful experience in high school. She said she was about 15 and bret cannot was about 17 and she says she was grabbed or attacked in this room and roughed up in the last five or ten minutes but to this day she seems to have a particularly vivid memory and judge kavanaugh says it never happened. He did not know this but had heard of her name summers but did not know her and none of the other people who were in the room at any confirmation of it but what do you make of Christine Christine blasey ford and how do you understand what she said and what do you believe about her testimony . Guest this is one of the interesting things to report on but its not such a cut and dry or blackandwhite type of story. I would take issue with this idea she had a vivid memory. I mean partly yes but partly one of the things that was festering for people trying to evaluate the memory was how there were no specifics to go along with it whether it was when it happened, where it happened, who was involved in some density does work changing and sometimes the details just werent there but to go back to the nomination process one of the things we learned that we thought was interesting was about how once you get on the short list be a Supreme Court nominee go through was called and asked dr, interview where you are interrogated about sex, drugs and rock n roll. Its been built into the process since the nomination for smoking marijuana with his im sorry, when he got in trouble for smoking marijuana with his graduate students, i believe. This was spoken into the process because of something. It could cause problems. That interview was gone and had a pretty good idea of who they were dealing with and it was the white testing understood that something might come out. One of the things that made them believe now Justice Kavanaugh when he flat out denied the allegation was how they had seen him be throughout the process. When they go through and saw him in the first round of hearings he was cautious about how to answer questions that he avoids the perjury trap so if someone was trying to suggest something is very careful in how he responds. With this allegation. He flat out denies it. It gave the White House Team confidence that this was on a guy trying to avoid perjury but a federal judge sat on the bench for 12 years and was firm. Cannot have been firmer in the denial. Because it was the allegation is and what evidence is there in support of it and what evidence that kavanaugh has to support his claims and that was a very interesting part of the process but spoke with quite a few people who know and like Christine Blasey ford and who knew her from childhood and it was a compensated picture. Yes she had no evidence to support the allegations but people thought she was nice and definitely have memories of her in high school and of her being a party girl which i dont think came out in the Media Coverage of that but it was not like such a these are real people with real life whether Christine Christine blasey ford or bret kevin who she accused. Host how does her friends interpret her testimony . That she was telling true stories that you remembered or made this up or what was what did people think about why would you come on National Television and tell some stories like this . From an outsiders point of view its why would she do that . Guest i think thats a question that a lot of people asked and there were a lot of things that do not seem to line up but several of the stories. She did say early on she did not want to come public. There are parallels with the anita hill allegations where she was told initially we can get him scuttled in to come public. Host who would be delighted to go on National Television like this . Guest i think no one plans that but however it also seems that she said she did not want to go on television for the first call she made was to the Washington Post where she said she wants she says i want to keep this completely unwraps but is going to the press a