ridiculous. if anything, these judges, i would describe them as pro-democracy in the sense that they are very clear about the limits on the unfettered exercise of power by the bureaucracy, the administrative state, not by people elected and accountable to the citizens. to describe it as monarchical is ridiculous. you have a brit on the panel, don t start talking about monarchical. who are you going to watch tomorrow? the lawmakers on the committee come off the committee. manchin, heitkamp, donnelly. there s going to be on wall street they call it a flight to surety. you re going to see these guys and gals want to get down as quickly as possible. kavanaugh is going to end up getting 55 votes i would imagine by the time it is said and done. the democrats have to decide, isn t more important to preserve the seats in red states are more important to be unanimously opposed. i am going to be watching who
frustrated with their leadership for being unable to prevent trump from getting his second supreme court justice. does the progressive base of the party take it out on the democratic leadership, which is already under fire. for democrats who didn t do their homework over the holiday weekend, the president provided them with a nice first question for kavanaugh today with tweets about jeff sessions. saying he s disappointed that the attorney general is not engagingly and politically motivated spiking of prosecutions. it is going to be a ton of stuff about trying to get kavanaugh to say something that will upset trump because the democrats will know trump is watching and they will try to get kavanaugh to say things about executive power and say things about trump s abuses of executive power that will get the president upset. trolls troll each other. judge kavanaugh judicial philosophy incorporates an
president trump s immigration, environmental, and regulatory policy. the supreme court has become the decision-maker of last resort on so many issues that have polarized our society. judge kavanaugh a decade ago suggested providing sitting presidents with a temporary deferral of civil and criminal prosecutions. it makes sense to make sure that we give our president is much room as possible to operate free from the usual burdens of the citizenry. that has many democrats worried that brett kavanaugh will protect the man who nominated him from any subpoena. judge kavanaugh s judicial philosophy incorporates an almost monarchical view of executive power. animated by belief that our chief executive gets to play by a different set of rules. while working for kenneth starr, kavanaugh advocated an aggressive approach to get
stand by, we re going to go to capitol hill. the judiciary chairman chuck grassley is meeting right now with supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh. i m just going to make a short statement. i m not going to take any questions. obviously our nominee will not take any questions. but i ve just had a pleasant conversation with judge kavanaugh. he and i have not interacted a lot in our lifetimes. so meeting with him is very important. he s a respected jurist with outstanding opinions that i think are going to be [ inaudible ]. we re going to have a thorough process. hopefully we can get it done
supreme court is no stranger to high-profile work. brett kavanaugh is an appellate judge now. in the past, the 53-year-old served in both bush administrations, and in the 1990s, he worked on the ken starr investigation involving president clinton. saul wisenberg worked with kavanaugh for two years on that investigation. thank you so much for joining me. saul, he was 33 years old when he became a lead author of the starr report. i want to read part of it to you and to our viewers. here s what he said. the president has a manifest duty to ensure that his conduct at all times complies with the law of the land. in sum, perjury and acts that obstruct justice by any citizen, whether in a criminal case, a grand jury investigation, or civil discovery are profoundly serious matters. when such acts are committed by the president of the united states, we believe those acts may constitute grounds for an impeachment. very tough words for the