1860s to empower qui tam relaters or whistleblowers to help the government identify and prosecute fraud on the taxpayers. The false claims act is the most effective antitrust tool that we have. And since the 1986 amendments that congressman berman, then a member of the house, and i was a member of the senate, got passed, the taxpayers recovered more than 53 billion in public funds lost to fraud. And we had people in the Justice Department when we first passed this that didnt like it because if a relater came to them or a whistle blower came to them and they said, that was like saying they werent doing their job. We had a district job in the late 80s i think told some prosecutor for the Justice Department that was trying to argue that a relater shouldnt have a certain amount of money. He said, do you realize you wouldnt even have a case if this whistle blower hadnt brought it to your attention . I think were over that now. But, you know, the Defense Department and the pharmaceuticals over the lasting 30 years have tried to gut this legislation. Even four years ago the chamber of commerce wanted to do something to it that would have really would have done injustice to the good that its done. So thats something, you know, that i think that is working. We ought to keep it there. As you know, in most cases, the plaintiff must have suffered an injury to have article iii standing to come before the court. There is however an Important Supreme Court case called Vermont Agency of Natural Resources which established that qui tam relaters have a constitutional standing under the false claims act to pursue claims for fraud against the united states. I dont know whether youre familiar with it, if you are, i guess im calling it to your attention so you can understand that thats pretty important from my point of view. You are familiar with it. You nodded your head. Mr. Chairman, im well familiar with your views on qui tam cases. Ive had a couple of in my circuit. Did you rule in my favor . No, you ruled in favor of somebody that was before you. That one that i have in mind, the little guy won, mr. Chairman. Okay. So i hope you know how important this rule has been for the protection of the treasury against fraud. And im certainly very patient about this issue, so i think if the false claims comes up, i hope sometime youll remember, whether im alive or dead, that senator grassley is interested in this. [ laughter ] senator feinstein. Thank you. Thanks very much, mr. Chairman. I would like to put three letters of opposition in the record, if i may, with your concurrence. Yes. Thank you very much. Sure. Is that all of them or you have a couple of others . Theyre all here. Without objection, whatever senator feinstein has that she wants in the record, that will be done. Thanks very much. Im not a lawyer. But as i read the case, this men was a felon in possession of a gun with a serial number struck off, in concert with another man who had a weapon that i believe was used in the situation. So he was a felon with a gun. And his probation instructed him that he was not to carry that weapon. So i have very strong feelings about that. And i just wanted to say that. I dont think you have to respond. But what i would really like to talk to you about. Senator, may i . Sure, absolutely. I dont mean to eat up your time or anything, but this is exactly the sort of thing i think ive been trying to convey to members of the committee, which is, its my job to decide these cases without respect to persons. There is the little guy right there. Hes a criminal defendant. Hes unsympathetic. I understand everything youre saying about him. Its all true. The question is still, does the government have to prove what the law requires of the government, or anybody, the big guy. Theres no bigger guy than the federal government. I understand. So im just trying to follow the plain words of the law, knowingly be a felon in possession, and the convicting judge told him he wasnt a felon. I followed precedent in that case, senator. The mans in prison because of precedent. I accept that that is your view. And i would like to move on. Okay. Its not my view. He was a felon. Yes, he was. So let me go on. I sent some documents down not down to you, but over to you yesterday. Yes. And this is i wou and i would like to ask you about one of them. This is the one that has to do about torture. Its labeled at the bottom dojmog 0143890. I can send it down to you again. No, ive got it right here. Yes. Okay. Theres no date on the document. But the document talks about the mccain and graham amendments to the detainee treatment act which was before congress in november and december of 05. And it asks specific questions about the indictment of jose padilla who was indicted on november 22nd, 2005. So the notes must have been on or after november 22nd, 05. Take a look at your handwritten notes on page 2. The document says, has the aggressive interrogation techniques employed by the administration yielded any valuable intelligence . Have they ever stopped a terrorist incident . Examples. Your handwritten note says yes. My question is, what information did you have that the bush administrations aggressive interrogation techniques were effective . And senator, im working on 12 years of passage of time here. My memory is what it is. And its not great on this. But my recollection but youre very young. [ laughter ] accept it. Ill take it, thank you. Im not sure my wife entirely agrees with you anymore, senator. But thank you. Thats kind. My recollection of 12 years ago is that that was the position that the clients were telling us. I was a lawyer. My job was as an advocate. And we were dealing with the detainee litigation. That was my involvement. You actually answered the question. So you had no personal information oh, no. That you took the position of your client. Yes. And that, because i know a lot about what happened. I know you do. That circles around in my brain a little bit. Because it seems to me that people who advise have an obligation to find the truth in these situations. And when we learned about what happened on the intelligence committee, the gang of eight learned earlier, we learned much later, i think it was 2006, we saw and when we looked into it, we really saw the horrendous nature of what went on. The absence of supervision, the absence of direction, the contracting out to people who in my view were not qualified to do what they did. And i think terrible things happened. Its a closed chapter. But it should never again happen. This is america. And its not what we stand for. So let me move on to something that does trouble me about originalism, if i may. And let me read something. I have a constituent who happens to be the dean of a law school who sent me a question. Uhoh. And i want to present it to you. And here it is. You are a selfprofessed originalist in your approach to constitutional interpretation. For example, you wrote, and i quote, judges should instead strive, if humanly and so imperfectly, to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history, to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be. Now, do you agree with Justice Scalias statements that originalism means there is no protection for women or gays and lesbians under the equal protection law because this was not the intent or understanding of those who drafted the 14th amendment in 1868 . Senator, first of all, a good judge starts with precedent and doesnt reinvent the wheel. To the extent there are decisions on those topics, and there are, a good judge respects precedent. Thats the first point. Second point i would make is, it would be a mistake to suggest that originalism turns on the secret intentions of the drafters of the language of the law. The point of originalism, textualism, whatever label you want to put on it, what a good judge always strives to do and i think we all do is try to understand what the words on the page mean, not import words that come from us, but apply what you, the peoples representatives, the lawmakers, have done. So when it comes to equal protection of the laws, for example, it matters not a whit that some of the drafters of the 14th amendment were racists, because they were, or sexists, because they were. The law they drafted promises equal protection of the laws to all persons. Thats what they wrote. And those, the original meaning of those words, John Marshall captured them in his dissent in plessy. Equal protection of laws does not mean separate in advancing one particular race or gender. It means equal. As i said yesterday, i think that guarantee, equal protection of the laws guarantee, the 14th amendment that it took a civil war for this country to win, is maybe the most radical guarantee in all of the constitution and maybe in all of human history. Its a fantastic thing. Thats why its chiselled in vermont marble above the entrance to the Supreme Court of the united states. I understand that. But here is what is hard, and let me be very personal about it, because this is important. I have sentenced women to state prison for committing abortion. I was a member when california had an indeterminate sentence law, actually the youngest in the country. And i know what life was like you have two daughters. I do. I am one of three daughters. And i know what life was like. I have heard of young women killing themselves. Ive heard of passing the plate in colleges so that a young woman could go to tijuana to have an abortion. I read a letter from a woman who is going to be in the audience tomorrow of how trying to get pregnant, finding that the fetus was catastrophic and having just a terrible time. So the law has finally progressed that we now have the right to vote. That took a long time. We are still fighting for equal pay for equal work. And it goes on and on. And as women take their place in the workplace, in society, we could have had a woman as president , perhaps, life changes. And the originalism that the days when the constitution was written project to me dont bring somebody forward. They bring them backward. In terms of rights that women did not have, they were not looked at as equal. As a matter of fact, we couldnt even get ratified a constitutional amendment, very simple, equality under the law should not be abridged on account of sex. That was the equal rights amendment. And the time was extended to three years to give it more time and they could not get the number of states to approve it. So if one looks at originalism, in my context, which is real life, i want your two daughters to have every opportunity they possibly could have, be treated equal, be able to control their own bodies in concert with their religion, their doctor, whatever it may be, and not be c conscribeed conscribe conscribed. Senator, i understand your concern and i share it. I come from a family of strong women. My two teenage daughters, youre right, i want every opportunity for them that a young man has. I have a strong wife. Anyone who knows her, knows that. But you are pivotal in this. And senator, i am daunted sitting here under the lights at the prospect of whats to come, if im so fortunate to be confirmed. And im daunted by the job i currently hold. And i take that trust very seriously. And no one is looking to return us to horse and buggy days. Were trying to interpret the law faithfully, taking principles that are enduring and a constitution that was meant to last ages, and apply it and interpret it to todays problems, to todays problems. And i think if you look at a number of cases where the court has applied what might be labeled by some as originalism, youll see, for example, in kilo, the search of a home with a heat seeking device, the court looked back to find out, would that be considered an unreasonable search . The technology didnt exist, of course. But would Something Like that have been considered an illegal search . Its essentially equivalent to a peeping tom. Of course that would have been considered an illegal search by the government. A heat seeking device, thermal imaging, is also a search of a home. Thats how we use neutral principles, the law, to apply it to current realities, not to drag us back to a past, but to move Forward Together as judges applying the law neutrally. Heres the problem. Ive been through this before. This is my ive been through six hearings. I listened to senator specter when he was chairman of this committee tell the chief justice, well, you have described super precedent. We talked about precedent. And whats happened is, every republican appointed judge has gone back and is a no vote. So how does one look at you and weve talked about precedent, for the life of me, i really dont know when youre there, what youre going to do with it. And as you say, this isnt text. This is real life. And young women take everything for granted today. And all of that could be struck out with one decision. Senator, all i can do is i cant promise you how i would rule on a particular case. That would be deeply wrong, to sit here at a confirmation table. And i think we agree on that, that it would be a violation of the independent judiciary for a nominee to a court to make a promise on any case in order to win confirmation. No, i dont expect you to. I know you dont, and im really grateful for that. I know you appreciate my position. All i can promise you is that i will exercise the care and consideration, due precedent, that a good judge is supposed to. Ive written a book on it. This is not something that is just words in a room. This is years of toil, in putting together a mainstream consensus view on what precedent is and the law of it with 12 judges appointed by president s of both sides, with a forward by justice breyer. And i didnt expect anyone to ever read it. I think a few people have read it now, probably still not that many. But thats my lifes work, that sort of thing. I care about the law. I care deeply about the law. And an independent judiciary. And following the rules of the law. And thats what commitment i can make to you. I cant promise you more and i cant guarantee you any less. What worries me is you have been very much able to avoid any specifici specificity, like no one i have ever seen before. And maybe thats a virtue. I dont know. But for us on this side, knowing where you stand on major questions of the day is really important to a vote aye. Thats why we press and press and press. Its very hard, because you mentioned that the number of cases you sat on and the that was unanimous i think was 97 , you said. And so we realize that these are a few cases on which the distinction is made. And its hard to make that distinction. So, you know, when one sees a lot in this country, and i just want to say this, for me i sat on 5,000 cases. These were women convicted of felonies in the state of california. I did it for six years. So i saw the inside of this whole issue. And thats one of the reasons why i feel so strongly, particularly let me ask you another area. Assisted suicide. Sure. You make the statement that there is no justification for having anything to do with the end of someones life, encouraging the end of life. Well, california just passed an end of life options act that takes a number, i think three doctors. I in my life have seen people die horrible deaths, family, of cancer, when there was no hope. And my father begging me, stop this, dianne, im dying. My father was a professor of surgery. Now trying to save him. So there are times you cant. And the suffering becomes so pronounced, i just went through this with a close friend, that this is real. And its very hard. So tell us what your position is in the situation with californias end of life option act, as well as what you have said on assisted suicide. Senator, this is something i can speak about, because ive written about it, and im delighted to talk about my record. I wrote a book in my capacity as a commentator, as my doctoral dissertation, essentially, before i became a judge. I have to tell you, as a judge, put that aside, we talked about that. But ill talk to you about what i wrote in the book because i think thats fair. What i wrote in the book was, i agree with the Supreme Court in the kruzanne decision that refusing treatment, your father, weve all been through it with family, my heart goes out to you, it does, and ive been there with my dad, okay . And others. And at some point you want to be left alone, enough with the poking and the prodding, i want to go home and die in my own bed in the arms of my family. And the Supreme Court recognized in kruzanne thats a right in common law, to be free from assault and battery, effectively, and assume that there was a constitutional dimension to that. I agree. Supposing you cannot handle the pain and you know that its irreconcilable. Senator, the position i took in the book on that was anything necessary to alleviate pain would say appropriate and acceptable, even if it caused death, not intentionally, but knowingly, i would realize on intent versus knowingly. I have been there. I have been there. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, sorry. No apology. Thank you. Were going to break away from the hearing and get some analysis. Jeffrey toobin, that was a very, very powerful, dramatic moment in that last exchange that neil gorsuch, the judge had, with senator feinstein. One of the unusual things about judge gorsuch as a nominee is he has actually written a lengthy and substantive book about assisted suicide, about these end of life issues. As he says, it was his doctoral dissertation at oxford which he turned into a book. Its interesting, ive read much of the book, i havent read the whole book. He seemed to be erring a little bit on the side of saying i support families whatever they decide to do. In fact the book is against assisted suicide. I mean, the book is very clear on that point. But, you know, i think what he was doing was responding to something that all of us in modern life have dealt with, which is how to deal with end of life issues. And its very hard. And youve studied this as well. In that book hes taken the clearest positions hes taking on anything, a quite conservative view, that i think that judges might not agree with in some of these cases that are coming up the pike, because what hes saying is that you could never interventintionally take , and that could be any kind of aid in dying by a physician. He was very careful to say he would set aside that view as a judge. But i think were going to see more questioning on this issue because thats where he has the deepest record and has spoken to clearly, at least where he was im sorry to interrupt. The other point about that book is that the issues relating to abortion, there are passages in that book about, you know, how you can never take a human life, you can never do that, which certainly at least read to me like a proxy for a prolife position. And he acknowledges that, in the book he says his principle of the sanctity of life would actually mean that you could not intentionally take the life of a fetus. He even acknowledges his view would start at the very beginning to the very end. The exchange today was so interesting, because clearly it was so emotional for senator feinstein, whose good friend just died. And maybe you legal folks can clear this up for me, but he made it clear that you can do anything to alleviate pain, and Everybody Knows that if you take a lot of morphine it not only alleviates pain but it brings upon death. And he seemed to be kind of trying to slice the salami a little bit there. And we know that goes on in hospitals all the time and all around the country. And so right. No, what hes saying, or at least what he said in the book, what he said in the book is that any dose of medicine intended to speed about death, hasten death intentionally, would be wrong. And he takes a very moral view of it. He says its a secular view, it feels a little bit inspired by religion but he says its secular. Thats exactly what i read in the book. And it was somewhat different from what i thought i heard him say to dianne feinstein. Yes. I thought it sounded somewhat different. What that means about what kind of Supreme Court justice hes going to be, i dont know. But i think he was the book he wrote 20 years ago . No, no. Even though it was part of his dissertation, it was published in 2006. 311 pages, for those of us who have read it, its quite deep, quite consistent. He exhaustively goes through the arguments on both sides but then very clearly comes down on the side very much against any kind of but it was based on his dissertation 20 years earlier. Right. I thought like jeffrey that he seemed to be trying to walk this line about taking anything to alleviate pain. Anybody can say that this drug was to alleviate pain when in fact it brought upon a faster death. I mean, its ambiguous to me. You spent some time with senator feinstein recently, like all democrats, shes under enormous pressure to vote against this confirmation. Obviously the context is it was san francisco, obviously the bastio bastion, obviously a bastion of liberalism. It was during a congressional recess, like members of the senate and house were doing town halls. She had an event and it was flooded with liberals and their number one goal was to say, you cannot vote for judge gorsuch, you cannot support him. And, you know, we were talking before the hearing started about t why democrats are going to be opposed, because of the times we live in, because the time for bipartisan votes for Supreme Court nominees are a time gone by. But in this day and age, i think, karen, what you experienced personally in and around the election, which is democrats feel so incredibly upset and bitter and still stunned, when i say democrats i mean the base, about what happened in the election. And this Supreme Court nomination isnt just about a lot of people feel that it was stolen, because judge garland was not was not given a vote. But also that this is the first real test of whether or not the liberal base, which is so upset about trumps election, can really show that theyve got the power to convince these democrats. And people like dianne feinstein, shes not a kneejerk liberal even though shes from san francisco, shes just not. Other democrats, even from the states where donald trump won, they do face a threat like never before of a primary challenge. To that point, the Democratic Base was angry yesterday after the hearing, we didnt think the democrats were aggressive enough, we didnt think the democrats were feisty enough, combative enough, and smart enough in their questioning. The phone range off the hook for democrats to be tougher today. Everybody stand by, well continue our analysis. Theres other major developments unfolding here in washington including the battle over health care. The Freedom Caucus conservative group in the house of representatives, theyve just been called to go over to the white house. Were all over that as well. Well be right back. Weeds. Natures boomerang. At roundup®, we know they keep coming back. Draw the line. One spray of roundup® max control 365 kills weeds to the root and keeps em away for up to one year. Roundup® max control 365. That had built his house once thout of straw. Tle pig one day a big bad wolf huffed and he puffed and blew the house down. Luckily the Geico Insurance agency had helped the pig with homeowners insurance. He had replacement cost coverage, so his house was rebuilt, good as new. The big bad wolf now has a job on a wind farm. Call geico and see how easy it is to switch and save on homeowners insurance. Im good. . I just took new mucinex clear and cool. Whats this sudden cooooling thing happening . Its got a menthol burst. You can feel it right away. New mucinex clear cool. Feel the menthol burst. While powerful medicine clears your worst cold symptoms. Lets end this. Welcome back. Im wolf blitzer in washington. This is cnns special coverage of another crucial day for the trump administration. President trump puts his deal making skills to the test. Moments ago we learned members of the house Freedom Caucus, a conservative group, will meet behind closed doors with the president at the white house behind closed doors to discuss the republican plan to repeal and replace obamacare. The president already giving republicans this warning, if they fail to repeal and replace obamacare during tomorrows crucial vote on the house floor, theyll pay for it at the ballot box. The next 24 hours clearly are critical, and the white house knows it. Theyre scrambling right now to try to lock in members of their own party before the house vote. They can only afford 21 gop noes. Right now democrats and former Vice President joe biden are on the steps of the u. S. Capitol, rallying for obamacare. Today marks the seventh anniversary of the passage of the law. The Vice President speaking right now, former Vice President i should say. Cnns Phil Mattingly and m. J. Lee are live on capitol hill. First to joe johns at the white house, a surprise meeting, joe, set the scene. Reporter its certainly clear from the surprise meeting, wolf, that the white house is worried and is hoping that they can change some minds in this Freedom Caucus about 27 members, were not clear how many members of the Freedom Caucus are expected to show up here. Our jeff zeleny reported several hours ago that they are expected here. The white house is using a variety of methods, just about everything at play here in washington, as it always is when theres a tough vote and its very close. Theres a certain degree of cajoling going on, also a certain degree of threatening. Also the president giving clear indications to conservatives and moderates who are not so sure about this bill that hes got their backs if theyre republicans. The problem for the white house is theyre running out of time, and its not clear at all that members of that Freedom Caucus are going to back down. In fact, there was some reporting earlier today that the Freedom Caucus might even hold a News Conference on capitol hill to talk about their feelings. Ive reached out, and so far have not heard back from the Freedom Caucus on that. So a tight vote coming over here to the white house, and the president and his administration will see what they can do, wolf. Will they allow any cameras into the top of that meeting with the Freedom Caucus that the president is having, a photo op . Reporter you know, its not clear. And i think thats a work in progress. Its been described as a closed meeting. We had anticipated taking cameras into a couple of the president s meetings here at the white house. But i cant tell you as i speak right now that im certain cameras are going to get in on that one. Joe, stand by. Phil mattingly is up by capitol hill. Is it your sense, phil, that this Freedom Caucus will vote as one or there will be splits . Reporter i think right now there will be splits. Youve got members of the Freedom Caucus who have come out and supported the bill, not a large group, two or three. And talking to house leadership, they feel like they can peel off a couple of more. There is a feeling in the Freedom Caucus is there are members who are simply not going to come on board. You get the feeling when you talk about to the House Republican leadership team, their whip operation, they want to peel off as many as possible, make sure they dont vote as a bloc, make sure they dont agree to oppose the bill en masse. Thats why this is a very hand in glove operation going on between the White House Legislative Affairs team, speaker ryans team, his whip operation. While youre seeing a lot of work behind the scenes from speaker ryans allies meeting with these individuals one by one, trying to peel them off, keep them away from the group, if you will, to see if you can persuade them to come aboard. Theres a recognition that a lot of these guys are leaning no. They likely will head to no. But theyre not closing the door yet. That was the word a heard a number of times, im not a no yet. That means theres an opening there and an opportunity to try to get them aboard. One of the ways theyre trying to do that, ive heard this multiple times from a number of sources involved in this process, is look at the broader picture here, look at the agenda going forward. If you want tax reform, if you want infrastructure, if you want trade deals, you cannot serve to grievously wound your first time president this early in the game, this early stage in his time in office. I think thats an opportunity, thats an argument they feel they can make that might be able to sit. Wolf, no question about it, theyre still not there, they still dont have the votes they need and there is a lot of work to be done over the next 36 hours. Stand by. M. J. Lee, what the rules committee is doing, its a little arcane, but could sway some final votes. Reporter wolf, this is a Committee Hearing that is expected to last hours. Ive been talking to Committee Aides and they say that this is expected to be a long process, perhaps knot as long as some of the markup hearings we had weeks ago when things went overnight and well into the morning. This is where well hear the most from democratic lawmakers. Were told the chairman is going to allow democratic lawmakers on this committee to speak out, essentially, against the bill. This is a lot of optics going on on capitol hill. Republican lawmakers want to stress as much as possible that this is going through regular order, members are being given the chance to speak out or speak for the bill as much as possible and democratic lawmakers are not expected to introduce any amendments, if any at all, because they believe, this is how an aide worded it to me, this aide said they believed the bill is so flawed that amendments at this point are pointless, but they want to seize this high profile opportunity to be on the record speaking out against this bill. M. J. Lee, thanks very much. I want to get back to the Senate Judiciary committee, the confirmation hearing for judge neil gorsuch, the Supreme Court nominee, is continuing. Democratic senator Patrick Leahy of vermont now asking questions. Two Royal Canadian mounties escorted her. The evidence will show she was training to do these abortions working for the ss so she could abort the women prisoners that they had impregnated so they could keep on using these women that way before they put them in the gas chambers. He looked at the names of the people who would be the potential jurors. Now, i applaud the senior senator from california for raising the issue she did. Yesterday i asked about your connections to billionaire super donor phillip anschultz. His role is extensive in lobbying the white house to get you on the tenth circuit. Once on the court, you said you recused yourself from cases involving him, and i commend you for that, you did the right thing. But you wrote in your Senate Questionnaire that you currently follow recusal standard broader than what is required by the Supreme Court, and if confirmed you would follow the weaker Supreme Court standard. Does that mean if confirmed you would no longer recuse yourself from cases involving mr. Anschultz . Senator, what it means is i will, if im fortunate enough to be confirmed, go through the same process i did when i became a judge on the tenth circuit, and which i committed to do at that time, which was look at the applicable law, look at the facts. I had a law clerk, i dont know if hes somewhere around. Let me get back to this. You found the facts were such that you recused yourself with mr. Anschultz when you were on the court of appeals. Yes. A case before the u. S. Supreme court, would not the facts be the same . He is a former client. I treated him as i treated my former clients, large and small. And senator, i would have to look at the recusal standards that are applicable to Supreme Court justices. The federal recusal standards apply to both Supreme Court justice and other judges. But the only difference is of course the Supreme Court, whether they recuse themselves or not, thats not reviewable. But would you again, you found enough reason to recuse yourself on the circuit and i applaud you for that. Would not those same reasons apply to the Supreme Court . And senator, i just have to study the law and the practice of the court just as i did when i came on the tenth circuit. And i commit to you the same process and the same integrity of the process. You look at the law, you look at the practice of your colleagues, you consult can your colleagues. Thats what i did. I had a law clerk prepare an extensive memorandum for me in which he analyzed all of the relevant precedents, the practices of my colleagues. I would note the federal recusal standard is the same law for the court of appeals and the Supreme Court with one exception, the Supreme Court is not reviewable. Now, i asked you yesterday whether there was any circumstance in which a president has the power to authorize torture or surveillance in violations of law passed by congress. You answered that correctly, no man is above the law. Now, im sure president bush and his lawyers believed he was operating within the law when he authorized torture and warrantless surveillance. But they still thought they could violate a statute if they are exercising their article ii power. Is there any circumstance where a president could ignore a statute passed by congress, signed into law, and still authorize torture or warrantless surveillance . If you had a statute against torture and warrantless surveillance, is there any circumstance in which a president could ignore that statute . Senator, i dont want to deal with a case that might come before me and those are the sorts of things that could come before me. But i can speak generally, and im happy to. Go ahead. President s make all sorts of arguments about inherent authority. They do. And thats why we have courts, to decide. President s of both parties have made arguments for instance about the war powers act. Both parties. And the congress has taken a different position on that matter, for example, with both parties. And the fact is, we have courts to decide these cases for a reason, to resolve these disputes. And i would approach it as a judge through the lens of the youngstown analysis. A case where a court has said a president could ignore a law that was on the books . I cant think of one offhand. I cant think of one offhand, senator. Neither can i. The architect of President Trumps muslim ban has declared that theres no such thing as judicial supremacy, and the powers of the president to protect our country, quote, are very substantial and will not be questioned. He was signaling that the president could ignore judicial orde orders. Any president , do they have to comply with a court order . I mean, obviously assuming its been upheld. Do they have to comply with it . Thats the rule of law in this country, senator leahy. And president s for a long time have said all sorts of things like that. President jefferson said things like that. He was slightly before my time. But president s say these things. Congress says things. Then judges decide. Thats the way our system works. And senator, all i can committee to you, again, is im a judge, i take that seriously. And you Better Believe i expect judicial decrees to be obeyed. As i said yesterday, a wise old judge who youre going to hear from tomorrow, one of my heroes, says that the real test of the rule of law is where a government, a government will accept those judgments. I believe in the rule of law too, thats why ive stayed on this committee for decades. When i took my oath before the vermont Supreme Court when i was sworn into the bar, i took that very seriously. I did with the Second Circuit federal court of appeals and when i was sworn into the u. S. Supreme court bar, i took that very seriously. I believe that ultimately we are a country of laws and we should follow them. Now, speaking of which, yesterday we discussed the relevance, what our framers meant in the constitution. And many feel they want to prevent a president from being corrupted by foreign governments. Obviously im referring to the emoluments clause. What do you think of the emoluments clause . The emoluments clause has not attracted a lot of attention until recently. If you want to go back to jefferson, ill go back to randolph. Im with you. Among other things, it prohibit member of the government of this country from taking emoluments, gifts from foreign agents. And the question is what exactly does that mean. And that is a subject on which there is ongoing litigation right now, senator, i believe, certainly threatened litigation, impending litigation. And i have to be very careful about expressing any views. What randolph said, it was done in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence to prohibit anyone in office from receiving or holding any emoluments in foreign states. Youre hesitant to discuss it. You wouldnt be hesitant to discuss the Fourth Amendment or fifth amendment, would you . Im hesitant to discuss any part of the constitution to the extent were talking about a case thats likely to come before a court, pending or impending. And i do think that the emoluments clause has sat in a rather dusty corner for a long time until recently headlines. I know there are cases that are at least impending in that area. I would be happy and try and talk about things that arent likely to come before let me ask you this. What does the constitution say a president must do if he or she receives a foreign emolument . Senator, thats a good question. I dont believe its been fully resolved. Well, i think its kind of easy. The clause prohibits receipt of any emolument without the consent of the congress. Right. Now, youre a judge. Im, as i said yesterday, a lawyer from a small town in vermont. But if it says that he cannot receive any emolument without consent of the congress, isnt the answer Pretty Simple . What a president must do if he or she receives a foreign emolument, they have to get the consent of the congress. Sure. I thought you were asking what would be the remedy. No, im asking what they would have to do. No, youre absolutely correct, senator. I appreciate that. Youve read i understand your concern, and i appreciate it, as a judge answering questions about any pending litigation. But you have been very hesitant to even talk about various Supreme Court precedents. I know that chief Justice Roberts when he was before us, he said he agreed with griswold and brown. Justice alito said he agreed with humdee and icenstat. So weve had justice nominated by republican president s who have been willing to discuss past precedent. I was just kind of hoping you would be as transparent as these prior nominees were. During the campaign, President Trump promised to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. Now, he had every right to say what he wanted, he could have picked anybody. The Vice President said you too were cut from the same cloth. But Justice Scalia was a friend of mine, an intelligent, influential jurist. I voted for him, in case people wonder, and not just because we both have italian ancestry. But his rulings left vulnerable communities out. Do you agree with Justice Scalias characterization of the Voting Rights act as a perpetuation of racial entitlement . Senator, the Voting Rights act was passed by this body during the Civil Rights Era in order to protect the civil rights. But it was also updated a few years ago during president george bushs tenure. In 2006 it was reauthorized with the support of the president , thats right. And that is true. And it is designed to protect the civil rights of americans. But do you agree with Justice Scalias characterization as a perpetuation of racial entitlement . Sir, i dont speak for Justice Scalia. I speak for myself. Okay. Others theres a lot of people who in the administration have described who you are. One of the reasons we have these hearings is so the American People and this committee can determine better who you are. And thats why i have not ill be at the hearing and make that determination, because i was concerned, i know that steve bannon is a strong advocate for your selection. And with all due regard to mr. Bannon, hes wellknown for giving a platform for extremists and misogynists and racists. At the cpac conference a few weeks ago, both mr. Bannon and Reince Priebus praised your nomination. I would ask consent that a report of that be included in the record. Without objection, your article will be entered. And mr. Priebus said that by nominating you, donald trump was making a change in 40 years of law. Suggesting you will come in there as a trojan horse. What vision do you share with President Trump . Senator, i mean no disrespect to any other person in saying they dont speak for me and i dont speak for them. I have great admiration for Justice Scalia, as weve talked about. I have admiration for every member of this committee, not the president of the united states, for the Vice President of the united states. Respectfully, none of you speaks for me. I speak for me. I am a judge. I am independent. I make up my own mind. The reason i ask, mr. Bannon, mr. Priebus, and the president , had closed door interviews with you. In these things, including this material ive put in the record, they promised their donors a nominee that would bring a procorporate, socially conservative agenda to the court. Are you saying theyre speaking for themselves, not for you . I am. Thank you. In your view, in the constitution, it speaks about high crimes and misdemeanors. What kind of conduct does that include . Well, senator were talking about the founders. They put that in. I think classically weve talked about felonies have been typically what this body has impeached individuals. Announcer this is cnn breaking news. Were breaking away from the judiciary committee. I wanted to immediately go to london. Theres been an incident outside of parliament. Cnns max forest is standing by. I understand shots have been fired. What do we know are y, max . Reporter we know very little at this point. We have a lockdown in the area. We heard the story from our colleagues at the Parliamentary Press in the houses of parliament, you can see it just to the right of the shot there. Theres been some sort of incident on westminster bridge. Theres been some sort of firearms incident. Were having to rely here on information from official sources. Ive recently been in briefings, you know, in terms of serious incidents happening in london, and they want us to rely on the sources coming to us from the police. And all theyre telling us at the moment is theres been some sort of firearms incident. Having said that, very reliable sources in the political reporting press based just yards from the scene youre looking at now are saying there is a serious incident unfolding. The area has been completely cleared. From what you can see and what i can see, wolf, the area is in lockdown. This is a very serious incident just by looking at the reaction there. Its pretty extraordinary in london to have an incident like this, although there have been warnings, we have no idea what the cause of this is, there have been warnings, max, in recent days of potential terror plots, is that right . Reporter well, theres ongoing concern about terror plots, of course. The most recent attachment of that has been this Electronics Ban on flights into the