Scribble

Live blog of confirmation hearing | September 6, 2018

We live-blogged the third day of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators completed their second and third rounds of questioning for the nominee.

3rd & 7 37yd

Booker: Serious charges made against me by my colleague from Texas. If what he said was sincere, there are rules governing the behavior of senators. If he feels I have violated those rules, he can bring those charges by going through the Senate process against someone, you said, is unbecoming of the Senate.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:25:04 PM
Booker: This is not a violation of the Presidential Records Act and Senate rules.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:25:39 PM
Booker: I stand by public's right to have access to these documents.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:25:50 PM
Did Booker already "violate" this rule? Or is he about to?

by andrew 9/6/2018 2:26:24 PM
Cornyn: Senate Rule 29.5 -- any senator who discloses confidential business of the Senate shall be liable to suffer expulsion from the body.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:26:27 PM
Multiple Democrats just said "bring it on."

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:26:35 PM
Booker: Bring the charges.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:26:41 PM
Blumenthal: All of us are ready to face that rule on the bogus designation of committee confidential. A Senate rule cannot be misused. The threat raised by a colleague is unfortunate, a kind way to put it.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:27:14 PM
Blumenthal: This is a lifetime appointment. Let the American people appreciate it. We need the full truth, as the nominee is sworn to give it us.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:27:42 PM
Lee: The document you're talking about had already been made approved through the process. I will work with you to approve documents.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:28:27 PM
Lee: The documents from the Constitutional Convention were sealed for 30 years. At least two of those members were nominated to the Supreme Court. That did not override the notes from the convention.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:29:39 PM
Tillis, R-N.C.: I don't ever plan on running for president. I hope everyone will record transcript of what's going on right now. Let's talk about consequences of making this an untrusted body to receive documents.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:31:11 PM
Tillis: I suggest that all of us waive our rights to our own documents. I'm ready to sign up for that now.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:31:49 PM
Grassley: I'll start with my questioning.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:32:20 PM
Kennedy: Why are we having to truncate the hearing today?

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:33:00 PM
Grassley: Rule to prevent committee from meeting when Senate is session may be waived.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:33:41 PM
Kennedy: Why is Mr. Schumer doing that? [Schumer is minority leader.]

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:33:56 PM
Grassley now actually getting started with questions.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:35:03 PM
Grassley: Let me ask you about cases that show you will vindicate less fortunate in society. [Our second protester is being taken out.]

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:36:37 PM
So I was listening to NPR's Nina Totenberg last night and one thing that stood out to me is that she said that the Senators have spent less time talking, either than usual or than Judge Kavanaugh, I don't remember which. Is Senators talking less than the nominee that uncommon when it comes to SCOTUS nominees?

by Fan of SCOTUSblog 9/6/2018 2:36:48 PM
Kavanaugh now speaking about case in which he ruled for woman denied social security benefits.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:37:32 PM
More pro-abortion rights protesters are being removed.

by Edith Roberts 9/6/2018 2:38:33 PM
A man just stood on a chair and began yelling, "Save democracy, save Roe"; he was immediately pulled from the chair onto the ground, and a whole bunch of chairs were pushed around as he was taken out.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:38:59 PM
Kavanaugh is going over the insurance rules in that case.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:39:14 PM
Insurance company case is an example of a pro-plaintiff ruling, says Kavanaugh.

by Edith Roberts 9/6/2018 2:39:37 PM
After asked by Grassley, Kavanaugh starts talking about union case against Wal-Mart. We ruled for the union.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:39:50 PM
Grassley is explaining his view on allowing cameras in the courtroom.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:41:08 PM
Grassley has sponsored the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act. Would you keep an open mind on cameras in the courtroom?

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:41:28 PM
Kavanaugh: I'll tell you what we've done on my court. On our court, we've gone from audio release some days argument to audio going out live with oral argument. The judges have become comfortable with this transparency.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:42:15 PM
Kavanaugh: On Supreme Court, best approach is to listen to views of people like yourself, Mr. Chairman. I know that past nominees have expressed support for cameras and then switched positions, so I would want to talk to the other justices.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:43:13 PM
Kavanaugh: There's also a distinction between coverage of oral argument and from opinion announcements. I will have an open mind.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:43:37 PM
Kavanaugh: I think observations of oral argument would increase confidence in the Supreme Court.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:44:31 PM
Feinstein, D-Calif., up and says she wants to go back to Roe.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:44:50 PM
Feinstein: We have an email previously marked confidential that is now public that shows you asked about making comments to an op-ed.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:45:29 PM
Feinstein: You said, the court can always overturn its precedent. Please tell us why you believe Roe is settled law and do you believe it is correctly settled?

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:46:03 PM
Kavanaugh: In draft letter, referring to views of legal scholars. I'm always concerned with accuracy.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:46:45 PM
Kavanaugh: Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:47:05 PM
What do our friends at SCOTUSblog think about televised Supreme Court proceedings?

by L 9/6/2018 2:47:45 PM
Kavanaugh makes an analogy to US v. Dickerson, in which the court specifically re-affirmed Miranda, despite the fact that Rehnquist had been a critic of Miranda. [Miranda is what started the "you have a right to remain silent" type explanations from police.]

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:48:54 PM
Kavanaugh still unwilling to say whether Roe was correctly decided.

by Edith Roberts 9/6/2018 2:49:09 PM
Any concerns with protestors like at these hearing? Could make it really hard do have a good argument.

by Ben 9/6/2018 2:49:33 PM
Kavanaugh: I have an obligation to preserve the independence of the judiciary.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:49:42 PM
Lee asks for the email at issue be made part of the record.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:50:02 PM
Feinstein: Bush White House took steps to limit women's right to reproductive health. During your service at the White House, did you work on any issues related to women's reproductive health or choice?

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:50:39 PM
Kavanaugh: Bush's policy was pro-life, so those who worked for him had to assist him in those policies. Some of those things might have crossed my desk.

by Andrew Hamm 9/6/2018 2:51:11 PM

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court will release orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.
The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference.
The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court's website.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders Opinions	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

Scribble

Live blog of confirmation hearing | September 6, 2018

We live-blogged the third day of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators completed their second and third rounds of questioning for the nominee.

Featured Posts

Challengers urge justices to dismiss census case after district court ruling (Updated) – Amy Howe

Reargument analysis: Justices seek a “middle position” in takings litigation case – Miriam Seifter

Argument analysis: Justices have strong views about removal of class actions – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award