Candidates, nominees from president republican president s have learned a lot about how to deal with the hearings. When you heard kavanaugh say as he did, talking about the parties to the case that theyre Flesh And Blood Human Beings and we need to have empathy for them and real world consequences of the court are very important. As a political matter, great stuff. A legal matter, its nonsense. Were youre an Appellate Judge and an issue comes before you, the issue is not the parties. Youre to resolve the legal issues. Its a purely legal matter. The parties may happen to be the case that they pick to do that. Now, obviously its as well as a human being to say you care about the parties, yes, you should, but thats smart to say that. Bork said when he was asked about why he wanted to be on the court back then, he said among other things, he said it was an intellectual feast. His critics got all over that. To him its a theoretical matter
kavanaugh. One is cory booker and kamala harris. No
whitehouse who i thought was going to be aggressive. he put everybody to sleep. the third audience is the hard left of the democratic base. i don t even think that the democrats on this committee have served that audience. no one has laid a glove on judge kavanaugh. he s not only coming off as brilliant, he s coming off as human and warm and likable. the inevitable next justice on the court. do we have dana in new york? let s go to you. as you watch this play out this afternoon, one of the things that strikes me is the fact that as grassley brought up, senator grassley, a lot of these complaints and we think about whitehouse and you think about leahy, that neither one of them availed themselves of the opportunity to look at these confidential documents when they had the opportunity. the only one that did was klobuchar. yet they re still complaining about not having access to the documents. in fact, at one point, senator leahy had to concede
just enacting their own policy preferences into the constitution. an example of that is the old pierce case where oregon passed a law that said everyone this is in the 1920s. early gone in the state of oregon every student had to attend a public school. a challenges brought by parents that wanted to send their children to a parochial school, religious school. the supreme court ultimately upheld the rights of the parents to send their children to a religious parochial school and struck down that oregon law. that s one of the foundations of the unenumerated rights dock trick folded into the glocksburg test and rooted in history and tradition. so how you get there is as you know well, senator, there s stacks of law reviews written to the ceiling on all of that, whether it s privileges and
attention to precedent, which includes the predictability, reliance protected by the law. a number of things that go into making a good judge. a work ethic. it s hard work to the dig in and find the right answer in a particular case. that s critically important as well. judicial temperament. a lot of factors that go into it. that s those are some of them. i m sure there s more. one of the things i was looking at, it s striking both overheated rhetoric we ve heard from some of our democratic colleagues and the protesters the last two days. i took a look at your record compared to that of judge merrick garland. judge garland, of course, was appointed to the d.c. circuit by
public. i think they all should be made public, the ones i don t like this committee classification, what happened. but the chairman allowed me to make them public. in those documents, in one e-mail from march 2002, you discuss limits on contributions to candidates saying and i ve heard very few people say the limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional. although i for one tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems. i just want to know, the buckley v.valeo case being settled law, it seems like you have some issues with those rulings. how do you view the precedent created by buckley and would you respect it? the buckley divide, as you know, senator is that expenditures on the one side of congress does not have substantial authority to regulation contribution limits on the other side. congress does have authority to