that really is a question for the house and the senate. let me move on. this is about actual opinions and really along the same lines that i know senator coons will talk to you about. but in the seven sky v. holder case, i quote, this is you, under the constitution, the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems the statute unconstitutional even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional. so you told me when we had the comment in my office that you attempted to clarify your views two years later in the aiken county case. it seems inconsistent to me. is it the case your views as expressed in opinions, not law review articles, that a president can ignore a law and until a court upholds it or a
thank you for stepping out and making time for us. great to be on with you. martha: good to have you on as always. he said the president is grasping at straws at this point. is he right? i disagree. i asked a series of questions of judge kavanaugh about opinions he has written and law review articles that i think show disconcerting tendency to embrace strong view of the presidential power. i look forward to another round of questioning with judge kavanaugh tomorrow to follow up. martha: one of the exchanges he said he was in favor of the nixon-united states decision that subpoenaed president nixon tapes and forced him to turn them over. you were not satisfied that it gave you some indication of how he would judge something in a same case?
impeachable offense and that really is a question for the house and the senate. let me move on. this is about actual opinions and really along the same lines that i know senator coons is going to talk to you about the special counsel statute and we re very concerned about that. but in the 7 sky v. holder case, i quote, this is you, under the constitution the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems a statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional. and so then you told me when we had the talk in my office that you attempted to clarify your views two years later in the aiken county case, but it seems inconsistent to me. so is it the case, your views as expressed in actual opinions, not law review articles, that a president can just ignore a law and tell a court upholds it like
a lawyer, as a participant, a partisan participant in some of the greatest partisan battles of our life time from the judge starr investigation of the clinton presidency to the bush v. gore recount, he is someone who has staked out positions at the far end of the judicial mainstream in america. and on the particular question of whether the president can or should be able to fire a special counsel at will, whether he can refuse to obey a subpoena for evidence, judge kavanaugh has been very clear in law review articles, in speeches and in opinions as a d.c. circuit judge. i m going to press him on whether he still holds those opinions and whether that might have been the reason that he got added to the list of judges that were ultimately put forward to president trump and why he might have been chosen by president trump as a nominee for the supreme court. meaning it is clear to you that judge kavanaugh does not believe a sitting president can
people in your position write all these law review articles, make all these speeches, and come to this room and clam up. don t want to talk about any issues, but that s what i expect. instead, we ll be asked to trust that if you re confirmed, you ll have an open mind, that you ll follow the law, rather than move the law in the direction of your views. i d like to trust you, but i agree with president ronald reagan. trust but verify. i wanted to trust you the last time you testified before this committee in 2006, but after you were confirmed to the d.c. circuit, reports surfaced that contradicted your sworn testimony before this committee. you said to me unambiguously under oath the following, i was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules go governing detention of combatants. but later, just a week or so ago, you acknowledged to my office you were involved. for 12 years, you could have apologized and corrected this record, but you never did. instead, you and yo