for other people on the committee when they speak. anyway, indeed, justice breyer and kagan were both confirmed in midterm elections. then the second attempt was to argue that we needed to request all judge kavanaugh s executive branch records. but they completely ignored the fact that we did not request all of justin kagan s executive branch records. indeed, her most recent and relevant executive branch records from the solicitor general s office were not requested. even despite the fact that judge kavanaugh has spent the last 12 years on the second most even though judge kavanaugh has spent the last 12 years on the second most powerful court in the country, issuing 307 opinions and joining hundreds of
answer on the record. i m capable of understanding it on my own. well, then everyone to understand my answer. so there s nominee precedent of how justices and nominees in my position have answered in the past. i ll be succinct if i can. all eight you ve said this in the hearing. people listening and interested have actually already heard you say this. i think it s important. so i say it again then. i want to underscore it. all eight justices have said it s inconsistent with judicial independence to provide cases or answers on cases that could come before us. justice ginsberg, justin kagan talking about no thumbs up or down. i went back. judge thurgood marshall was asked what do you think about miranda got it.
chairman of the committee says, okay, never mind, we ll do it without it. it s an artificial deadline. and obviously they want the result, they want to get the justice confirmed as opposed to ensuring the integrity of the process. a really good comparison is justin kagan who had worked inside of the white house and they turned over papers both from her time in the counsel s office and her work on the domestic policy council. but now we ll have for judge kavanaugh a process where only his work in the white house counc counsel s office, not three years as the white house staff secretary, a job he said was tremendously important in determining his judicial outlook. so this results-oriented process will really deprive much of the senate the paperwork it will be reviewing. joyce van ychce, thanks veryh for joining us tonight. thanks for having me.
information needed for this incredibly important confirmation. what s so strange, the chairman of the committee requested the information, said the committee needs it. the archives says we re not going to have it in time for your scheduled hearing and the chairman of the committee says, okay, never mind, we ll do it without it. it s an artificial deadline. and obviously they want the result, they want to get the justice confirmed as opposed to ensuring the integrity of the process. a really good comparison is justin kagan who had worked inside of the white house and they turned over papers both from her time in the counsel s office and her work on the domestic policy council. but now we ll have for judge kavanaugh a process where only his work in the white house counsel s office, not three years as the white house staff secretary, a job he said was tremendously important in determining his judicial
flexing its muscle and unafraid to overrule cases notwithstanding the express respect for starry sigh s. and it generated as we speak justin kagan is still reading fromer dissent. as tom perez says, i think that it will have a very tough effect on public sector unions, but i think it showed the sort of emergence not emergence, but consolidation of a muscular five person conservative majority unafraid to overrule precedence. when you talk about justice kennedy, it has been written that the separate concurrence in the travel ban case felt to me like a kennedy mic drop. he s done all that he can to fix the problems in america society. now it is up to those in power and those who put them there.