President Trump, Judge Cavin, Judge Cavanaugh discussed on Dr. Drew Midday Live with Mike Catherwood
Sergeant at arms will restore order in the gallery. Sergeant. As a. As a reminder to our guests in the galleries expressions of approval or disapproval are not permitted in the Senate calories. The center for Maine. Mr president. Mr President the five previous times that I've come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of Justice to the United States Supreme court. I have begun by floor remarks explaining my decision with recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion. But today, we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional, it looks more like a caricature gutter level political campaign. Ben a solemn occasion. The president nominated Brad Kavanagh on July nine within moments of bad announcement special interest. Groups race to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn't even bothered to fill in the judge's name on its pre bread impress release. They simply road. That they opposed. Donald Trump's nomination of X. To the supreme court of the United States a number of senators joined the race to announce their opposition. But they were being to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominees. Attentive team was even know. Since that time, we have seen special interest groups with their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about judge Kavanagh's judicial record over the top rhetoric and distortion set his record and testimony at his first hearing produce short lived headlines, which although two hours later continue to live on NBC spread through social media interest. Groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination. I'll wear supreme court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than thirty years. One can only hope that the cavern a- nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom. Against this backdrop, it's up to each individual Senator to decide what the constitution said. Vice and consent duty means informed by Alexander Hamilton, federalists seventy six you're listening to you Senator Susan Collins Republican president making her. Sitter at nominee Milosevi. Whereas my duty as Senator is to focus on the nominees qualifications. As long as that nominees philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial. I have always opposed litmus test for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I've never considered the president's sedan or party when valuating supreme court nominations as Sabrina salt. I voted in favor of justices Roberts and Alito. Hoover nominated by President Bush justices, sodium by and keagan nominated by President Obama and Justice scores such who was nominated by President Trump. So I began my valuation of judge cavernous nomination by reviewing his twelve year record on the DC circuit court of appeals, including has more than three hundred opinions and his many speeches and law review articles nine teen attorneys, including lawyers from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service freaks me many times each week and assisted me in a valuating the judges extensive record I met with judge Cavanaugh off for more than two hours in my office. I listened carefully to the testimony at the committee hearings. I spoke with people who knew him personally such as Condoleeza. Piece of rice and many others. And I talked when judge Cavin a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions. I also have met with thousands of my constituents both advocates and many opponents regarding judge Cavin. One concern that I frequently heard was set the judge would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care ACT's vital protections for people with preexisting conditions. I disagree with this contention in a descent in seven sky, the holder judge Cavin of rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds per serving the law in fall, many experts have said that his descent informed, Justice Roberts opinion, upholding the at the supreme court. Furthermore, judge Cabanillas approach toward the doctrine of separate -bility is narrow when a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds. He has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact. This was his approach in his descendant. A case said involved a challenge to the structure of the consumer financial protection bureau in his dissent. Judge Cavin a- argued for quote severing any trap Matic portions well, leaving the remainder intact, and quote, given the current challenges to the ACA proponents, including myself protections for people with preexisting conditions should want to Justice who would take just this kind of pro. Another assertion that. I heard up, and is that judge cavenaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the president were to come before the court. The basis for this argument seems to be two fold. I judge Cavanaugh has written that he believes said congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office. Mr president. I believe opponents missed the Mark on this issue. The fact that judge cabin offered. This legislative proposal suggests that the police that the president does not have such protection current light. Second. There's some who argued that given the Kurds special counsel investigation. President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a Justice that argument ignores our recent history, President Clinton in nineteen ninety three nominated Justice Ginsburg after the whitewater investigation was already underway. And she was confirmed ninety six to three the next year just three months after independent counsel. Robert Fisk was named to lead the whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice briar. He was confirmed to eighty seven to nine. Supreme court justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them perhaps most notably in the United States versus Nixon three Nixon appointees who heard the case. Join the unanimous opinion against him. Judge cabinet has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law. He has stated that Marbury versus Madison Youngstown steel versus Sawyer and the United States versus Nixon art, three of the four greatest supreme court cases indicate story. Why do they have in common? Each of them is a case where congress served as a check on presidential power. And I would note that the fourth case the judge Cavin has pointed to as some the greatest sin history was Brown versus the board of education. One Cavanaugh dissension ills traits the point about a check on president power directly. He wrote the opinion in Hamdan versus the United States case that challenged the Bush administration's military commission prosecution of an associate of Osama bin Laden, Fisk conviction was very important to the Bush administration. But judge Cavin quit been appointed to the DC circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush's White House ruled that the conviction was unlawful as displaying during the hearing, quote, we don't make decisions based on who people are or their policy preferences, or at the moment we based sessions. On the low end quote. Others. I've met with have expressed concerns said Justice Kennedy's retirement threatens the right of same sex couples to marry yet judge Cavin described the Oberg of Pell's decision, which legalized same gender marriages as an important landmark precedent. He also cited Justice Kennedy's recent masterpiece, caged cake shop opinion for the court's majority stating that, quote, the days of trading, gay and lesbian Americans are gay lesbian couples as second class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the supreme court and. Others have suggested that the judge hold six streams few some birth control. In one case judge cabinet incurred, the disfavor both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections, although his critics frequently overlooked, this point judge Cabanillas dissent rejected arguments set for government did not have a compelling interest. In facilitating access to contraception impact. He wrote that the supreme court precedent strongly suggested that there was a compelling interest IMP Acilitator access to birth control. There is also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that judge Kaverner would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge. Judge Cavanaugh is first supreme court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition but rooted in article three of our constitution itself. He believes set precedent is not just a judicial policy. It is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay he to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn't a goal or an aspiration. It is a constitutional tenant that has to be followed except in the most extrordinary circumstances. The judge further explained that president provide stability, predictability, reliance and fairness. There are of course, rare and extraordinary times where the supreme court put rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the supreme court in Brown versus the board of education over rolled Plessey versus for Ferguson correcting a grevious asleep wrong decision to use the judge's term allowing racial inequality, but someone who believes that the importance of president has been rooted in the constitution would follow long established precedent, except in those rare circumstances where a decision is grievously wrong or deeply inconsistent with the law. Those are judge Kavanagh's Frances as the judge should started. To me along established precedent? It's not something to be trimmed narrowed discarded or overlook its roots in the constitution gives the concept of starry decisive greater way, such the president can't be trimmed or narrowed simply because the judge might want to one of women insured, his views on honoring precedent would Chris clued attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do over. Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided forty years forty five years ago, and reaffirmed nineteen years later in Planned Parenthood versus Casey, I asked judge Cavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time, and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence. Our discussion then turn to the right of privacy. I'm which the supreme court relied in Griswold versus Connecticut. A case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraception. Griswold established the legal foundation that led to row eight years later. In describing griswald as settled law. Judge Cavin observe that. It was the correct application of two famous cases from the nineteen twenties Meyer and peers better not seriously challenged by anyone today finally in his testimony. He noted repeatedly that Rowe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood versus Casey, describing it as precedent on precedent. When I asked him what a piece sufficient overturn of long established precedent, if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided he in paddock said, no. Opponents frequently say, then candidate Donald Trump's campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn roam the Republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least nineteen eighty during this time presidents Republican presidents have appointed justices O'Connor suitor and Kennedy to the supreme court fees that very three justices Republican president appointed justices who authored Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe. Furthermore, pro choice groups vigorously oppose each of these justices nominations incredibly they even circulated buttons. With the slogan. Stop suitor or women will. Just two years later just as suitor coworker, Casey opinion, reaffirming a woman's right to choose. Suffice. It to say prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong..