Scribble

Live blog of confirmation hearing | September 7, 2018

We live-blogged the fourth day of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Witnesses provided testimony.

3rd & 7 37yd

Lee to Sinzdak: What was class with Kavanaugh like?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 3:59:30 PM
Lee to Amar: Tell me about your affinity with Justice Black.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:00:12 PM
Amar: He also carried a Constitution. I was charmed by Kavanaugh's. Black reminds us that you don't have to go to a fancy law school to be one of the greats.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:00:41 PM
Amar: Black was a southern white person who really understood the Reconstruction amendments.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:01:43 PM
Amar: He was the driving intellectual force on the Warren Court. A former senator turned justice.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:02:11 PM
[Lee, who asked the question, is actually a senator on Trump's list on potential judges.]

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:02:31 PM
Blumenthal to Olson: We argued before the Supreme Court together, we won 9-0 in upholding sex offender registry case.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:03:33 PM
Blumenthal: I am troubled by attacks on the judiciary.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:03:47 PM
Particularly by the president

by Edith Roberts 9/7/2018 4:04:05 PM
Blumenthal: I asked Kavanaugh about those attacks and was disappointed in his responses. He would not go as far as Gorsuch as saying the attacks were disheartening and demoralizing.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:04:32 PM
Blumenthal: Don't you think Kavanaugh has an obligation to stand strong against these attacks?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:05:04 PM
Olson: I only speak for myself. Our judiciary is the envy of the world. I deplore statements criticizing the integrity or intelligence of our judiciary. I have the hugest respect for Justice Ginsburg.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:05:57 PM
Blumenthal to Garza: Kavanaugh just discussed a delay in your client's case. Could you speak about consequences?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:07:45 PM
Garza: Doe never once wavered. Because she was delayed in receiving the procedure, she had to have a surgical abortion, increasing her health risk.

by Edith Roberts 9/7/2018 4:08:42 PM
Garza: She had to have a surgical abortion instead of a medical abortion.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:08:48 PM
Booker, D-N.J., to Murray: You were mentioning standards not applied by Kavanaugh in Garza case. Why would a judge who sticks to precedent not stick to this case?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:09:31 PM
Murray: I do not understand. The precedent was directly on point.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:09:55 PM
Kavanaugh: What excuse does he have?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:10:09 PM
Kavanaugh reiterated the need for a sponsor even though that was not required.

by Edith Roberts 9/7/2018 4:10:27 PM
Murray: Kavanaugh testified that he viewed having a minor as a proxy for parental consent.

by Edith Roberts 9/7/2018 4:11:04 PM
Murray: Whole Woman's Health is about weighing burdens and benefits, which Kavanaugh also did not do.

by Edith Roberts 9/7/2018 4:12:14 PM
Garza: Abortion on demand was not the situation for Jane. She was one of the most vulnerable people in the community.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:12:46 PM
Booker: It's a fiction that this judge was not doing a try out for this president to be put on the Supreme Court.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:13:18 PM
Richmond: We have not been talking about an increase in racial intolerance. Whether studying at Yale, just being African American makes you a criminal suspect.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:14:03 PM
Booker to Tillis, one more mean question

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:14:25 PM
Booker to Amar: In your common law class, do you regret passing me?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:15:00 PM
Harris, D-Calif.: Conversation has come up that leads me to believe dog whistles had been offered by this nominee, including "abortion on demand." Another "racial spoils system." He told me he wasn't sure he was referring to. I explained it was a loaded term. Can you share what you understand from that term?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:16:14 PM
Richmond: It's a common dog whistle in the south. You are pitting poor white people against poor black people, and tell poor white people are having benefits taken by minorities. It's not true. Those programs that I think he refers to are righting the wrong history in this country.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:17:05 PM
Richmond: The use of the term is blatant pandering to a base of people. In the case of race-based factors for college admissions, this administration is investigating Harvard. What does that mean for minorities applying to elite institutions?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:17:56 PM
Harris to Murray: How could Kavanaugh undermine reproductive rights, short of overruling Roe?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:18:35 PM
Murray: There are over 10 cases pending in the lower federal courts.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:19:06 PM
Harris: Can you break this down?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:19:13 PM
Murray: Over 400 laws passed since 2011. Increase wait times, eliminate certain safe procedures, require doctors to provide false information to patients, etc.

by Edith Roberts 9/7/2018 4:19:55 PM
Murray: Laws would increase wait times, eliminate certain methods of abortion, require doctors to tell falsehoods about breast cancer or suicide ideation. These laws have been passed, are being challenged and could make way to court.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:20:07 PM
Murray: Protections of Roe can be made meaningless by putting up so many restrictions on accessing abortion.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:20:33 PM
Hirono, D-Hawaii, to Weintraub: Can you talk about dangers you see for Americans with disabilities?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:21:51 PM
Weintraub: Case with three women with intellectual disabilities. They were not asked what they wanted for personal decisions around our bodies. These women may or may not understand about these issues, but that's why we take husband, friends, supporters.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:23:32 PM
Weintraub: My husband also has a disability. We ask my sister to help us understand these issues. We need to be involved in these decisions. Judge Kavanaugh took that away from us.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:24:12 PM
Hirono: Garza was not a parental case, right? I would characterize it as an obvious mistatement of the issue before the case. Would you agree?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:25:02 PM
Garza and Murray: I agree

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:25:15 PM
Hirono: I think it's troubling when someone mischaracterizes the question before the court.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:25:49 PM
Hirono to Murray: Can you talk about contradictions in outcomes in dissents in Garza and Priests for Life?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:26:31 PM
Murray: In Priests for Life, we saw incredible deference to the employer. The common element is that there is no burden that is too great for the woman.

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:27:32 PM
Murray: In Priests for Life, what we saw was incredible deference to the employer's beliefs, accepting that merely signing a form constitutes an unacceptable burden, whereas in Garza, Kavanaugh did not recognize the burden on Jane Doe imposed by the delay in her ability to receive an abortion.

by Edith Roberts 9/7/2018 4:28:09 PM
Tillis to Amar: Can you give insights into what best reflects Kavanaugh's thought process?

by Andrew Hamm 9/7/2018 4:28:59 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 7, 2018

We live-blogged the fourth day of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Witnesses provided testimony.

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