Cornin: Hard to take seriously idea that they can't do their jobs when our Democratic colleagues have announced opposition to nominee even before hearing.
Cornin: This is a chance for the American people to listen to the nominee.
We are almost one hour into the hearing and we haven't really gotten to the opening statements yet, though Chairman Grassley tried to start his, and then he ask Sen. Feinstein to go ahead and give hers, which she basically did.
Blumenthal: We are asking for the rules to be followed. In the past when colleagues asked for proceedings to be postponed -- from Sen. Sessions and Kyle. Those were respected.
Durbin (D-Ill.): I'd like to address committee confidential issue (this is about documents that were released, but kept confidential). He says this is what Bill Burke said the documents had to be marked. Who is Bill Burke?
Sen. Blumenthal has visual aids, too, with past quotes from Republican Senators Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl about document releases regarding Elena Kagan.
Durbin: By what authority can this man hold back documents? He's a private attorney who has been making the committee confidential decisions for the White House. But in the past confidential determinations were made on a bipartisan basis. This whole process has gone astray.
Sen. Kennedy (R-La.): are we in executive session or not? Grassley: Hearing, not session.
Grassley: How long do you want to go on with this? I will not entertain any motions. We are not in executive session.
Grassley, answering a friendly question from Sen. Kennedy, says he was planning for the committee to hear from Kavanaugh by 2:30. That seems optimistic even without the many interruptions and digressions.
Grassley: I've been accused of running a mob rule hearing. How long do you want to go on?
Coons: The accusation of mob rule hearing made by Republican from Texas (Cornyn). The issue is about how the document requests were handled. Why did you choose to communicate to the Archives not to respond to Feinstein's separate request from the Archives for documents.
A group of spectators is being led out, not because they protested, but because their half hour (or whatever length the normal time for rotation) is up.
Grassley now reading prepared remarks about why staff secretary documents are the least illuminating and the most sensitive.
Grassley is now repeating a few of his main points about the documents. One is that Kavanaugh's judicial record is what's relevant, not so much his other documents. Another is that as staff secretary, the job was not to influence the president but to ensure he gets viewpoints from all relevant members of staff, so staff secretary documents would not teach us about his legal views.
A third point of Grassley is that the questionnaire Kavanaugh answered was more robust than for previous nominees, and the total number of documents released is larger than for previous nominees.
Grassley also calls the document requests nothing more than delay.
Sen. Harris (D-Calif.): We sent a letter to you seven days ago about the confidential nature of documents, and asked that they not be so documented. Also, you've only requested 10-15% of total documents. I appreciate that the number of documents released is a lot, but it's only 10-15% of the total.
Harris: This is a hearing about who will sit in a house that symbolizes justice in our democracy. Transparency is part of justice. The debate about documents should be what they tell us about the nominee, not that they are admissible.
Blumenthal: I have made a motion that is properly before this committee. We've never had a hearing like this because no administration has engaged in this kind of concealment.
Blumenthal: I renew my motion to adjourn so we can access the documents we need. There is no requirement that we be in executive session to follow this rule.
Blumenthal: I know the chairman has great respect for open government. We need some sunlight in this process.
Grassley: Motion denied because not in executive session.
Hirono (D-Hawaii): There is a misconception about what staff secretaries do. She cites an op-ed by two past staff secretaries who say the role is not as "traffic cop." And Kavanaugh has said it was a formative time in his adult life.
Grassley: That's why we have this hearing. Kavanaugh will have opportunity to answer question about his adult life.
Booker: A lot of numbers are being cited about the extent of his record. But 90% of the record has been withheld from senators. We are about to proceed with a historic hearing.
Kavanaugh is looking attentively at Booker.
Booker: Common sense says we can't do job with only 10% of record.
Grassley: One of Senate's most important duties is to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. [This seems to be Grassley trying to go ahead with his opening statement, as there is another audience interruption.]
Grassley is still speaking. There have been now three interruptions as he has been speaking. And a fourth.
A new group of spectators, a new protestor.
Grassley is speaking about the rule of law and the role of the judge: to apply the law as written even if the result is not one the judge personally likes. Scalia used to say that if a judge liked the outcome of every case he decides, he's probably doing something wrong. [I could not hear everything as the tally of audience went up to 9.]
Grassley: Some think that judges should decide cases based on outcomes to advance politics. But American people don't want that. [Tally: 10 interruptions -- and this is just during Grassley's comments over the past few minutes.]
Grassley: What litigant could expect fair case if judge has already pre-judged the case.
Now Grassley cites Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her hearing, saying she would give no hints or forecasts on how she would rule. Gorsuch cited this same comment frequently during his hearing last year.
Grassley invoking "Ginsburg Rule," under which nominees should not be asked to express their views on issues that might come before them, including precedents like Roe v Wade.
Perhaps we should start a tally of how many times one of the senators calls him "Brent" instead of "Brett," as I think happened a few minutes ago.
Senators should be satisfied if Kavanaugh answers similarly, Grassley says.
Now Grassley goes back to Judge Bork's failed nomination in 1987. Grassley says this experience taught interest groups that they could wreck nominations of judges they don't like, as they nearly did with Clarence Thomas. But Judge Kavanaugh may be the most qualified nominee I've seen, Grassley says.
Grassley: After Kavanaugh's nomination, I promised a thorough process. I say that again despite this morning.
Pretty much every member of this new groups is standing up to protest, one by one. One woman says, I am in a wheelchair and I traveled here from Illinois.
For anyone joining, there have been two primary elements to this morning's hearing so far. The first is a motion from the Democrats to adjourn the hearing, largely because of a lack of access to documents and time to review them. The second is a host of interruptions from members of the audience telling the senators to vote "no" on the nomination.
Grassley now ask Feinstein (D-Calif.) if she has more to say.
Maybe it's because there are about 80 reporters and others here logged in to the wi-fi, but some of my posts have faced a delay in publishing, so my apologies.
Feinstein: Important that people as well as the nominee understand how strongly we feel, and why. I want to talk about a big decision about whether you believe it's correct law: Roe v. Wade.
Submit Event
