THIS IS A CIRCUS. >> WELCOME BACK TO "HARDBALL."
IT’S BEEN EXACTLY A WEEK NOW
SINCE THAT GUY, JUDGE KAVANAUGH,
TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THE SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE THAT WAY,
GETTING INTO CONTENTIOUS
EXCHANGES, OF COURSE, WITH
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS.
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS. >> YOU’RE PREPARED FOR AN FBI
INVESTIGATION?
INVESTIGATION? >> THEY DON’T REACH CONCLUSIONS.
YOU REACH THE CONCLUSION.
>> NO, BUT THEY DO INVESTIGATE
QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS. >> DID THE WORD "RALPH" YOU USED
IN --
IN -- >> I ALREADY ANSWERED THE
QUESTION.
QUESTION. >> IF YOU’RE --
>> DID IT RELATE TO ALCOHOL?
>> I LIKE BEER.
I LIKE BEER.
I DON’T KNOW IF YOU LIKE BEER,
SENATOR?
SENATOR? OR NOT?
OR NOT? >> UM --
>> UM -- >> WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO DRINK?
>> NEXT ONE IS --
>> SENATOR, WHAT DO YOU LIKE TO
DRINK?
DRINK? >> SO YOU’RE SAYING THERE’S
NEVER BEEN A CASE THAT YOU DRANK
SO MUCH THAT YOU DIDN’T REMEMBER
WHAT HAPPENED THE NIGHT BEFORE
OR PART OF WHAT HAPPENED?
>> IT’S -- YOU’RE ASKING ABOUT,
YEAH, BLACKOUT.
YEAH, BLACKOUT. I DON’T KNOW -- HAVE YOU?
>> COULD YOU ANSWER THE
QUESTION, JUDGE?
QUESTION, JUDGE? I JUST -- SO, YOU HAVE -- THAT’S
NOT HAPPENED?
NOT HAPPENED? IS THAT YOUR ANSWER?
>> YEAH, AND I’M CURIOUS IF YOU
HAVE?
HAVE? >> I HAVE NO DRINKING PROBLEM,
JUDGE.
JUDGE. >> WELL, AFTER WATCHING THAT
HEARING, MARK OSZLER, A YALE LAW
SCHOOL CLASSMATE OF KAVANAUGH’S,
WHO HAD ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED HIS
NOMINATION, RETRACTED HIS
SUPPORT.
SUPPORT. IN A LETTER WRITTEN WITH ANOTHER
YALE LAW SCHOOL CLASSMATE, HE
WROTE, HAVING WATCHED THOSE
HEARINGS, WE MUST WITHDRAW OUR
SUPPORT FOR JUDGE KAVANAUGH’S
CONFIRMATION.
CONFIRMATION. MIKE OSTLER IS A PROFESSOR AT
ST. THOMAS LAW SCHOOL AND JOINS
US NOW.
US NOW. PROFESSOR, THANK YOU FOR JOINING
US.
US. AND TELL US HOW IT’S GONE
THROUGH YOUR MIND FROM THE
BEGINNING OF THIS A COUPLE OF
WEEKS AGO TO NOW WHERE YOU DO
OPPOSE THE NOMINATION?
>> WELL, I ORIGINALLY SIGNED THE
LETTER SUPPORTING JUDGE
KAVANAUGH, BECAUSE I KNEW HIM, I
LIKED HIM WHEN WE WERE IN LAW
SCHOOL, AND I KNEW THAT HE HAD A
GOOD REPUTATION ON THE COURT OF
APPEALS.
APPEALS. I TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE WHO WERE
PRACTITIONERS THERE.
PRACTITIONERS THERE. THEY SAID HE WAS FAIR.
THAT HE HIRED THE GOOD CLERKS.
THEN WE GOT INTO THE HEARINGS.
AND WHAT I SAW LAST THURSDAY WAS
PRETTY DISTRESSING.
PRETTY DISTRESSING. I’M SOMEONE WHO TEACHES -- NOW I
TEACH LAW STUDENTS AND I TEACH
ADVOCACY.
ADVOCACY. AND WE VIEW THE SUPREME COURT AS
KIND OF THE ROMAN COLISEUM.
AND TO SEE THAT KIND OF PROCESS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUPREME
COURT AND WHAT WE SAW FROM BRETT
KAVANAUGH ON THAT DAY A WEEK
AGO, IS DEEPLY TROUBLING.
>> YOU KNOW, IT’S AMAZING FOR A
NON-LAWYER LIKE ME AND EVERYBODY
ELSE, AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE,
WHEN WE WATCH THE SUPREME COURT
DEBATE, WE LOVE THAT PERIOD OF
ARGUMENTS.
ARGUMENTS. IT’S JUST -- IT’S CRISP, IT’S
SHARP, THERE’S NO WASTED WORDS.
AN ECONOMY OF WORDS IS FABULOUS.
THE PEOPLE SPEAK IN LOGIC.
YOU GET IT.
AND THAT CALLS FOR A CERTAIN
KIND OF, I GUESS, TEMPERAMENT,
RIGHT?
RIGHT? >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> ABSOLUTELY. AND IT’S NOT JUST THE
TEMPERAMENT THAT THEY SHOW WITH
THE LITIGANTS.
THE LITIGANTS. BUT THEY’RE PART OF THE LARGER
SPHERE OF THOSE WHO CONTROL OUR
GOVERNMENT.
GOVERNMENT. THEY HAVE TO INTERACT WITH THE
OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE SAW
WITH THE INTERCHANGE LAST WEEK
WAS JUDGE KAVANAUGH HAVING THAT
KIND OF TROUBLING DISCOURSE WITH
A CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
AND THAT ADDED TO THE WEIGHT OF
WHAT’S TROUBLING A LOT OF
PEOPLE, I THINK.
>> WELL, MARK, LET ME KNOW WHAT
YOU THINK OF THIS.
AT AN EVENT TODAY IN FLORIDA,
FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
JOHN PAUL STEVENS WHO’S 98 NOW,
SAID THAT LAST WEEK’S HEARINGS
CAUSED HIM TO CHANGE HIS MIND ON
KAVANAUGH.
KAVANAUGH. LET’S WATCH.
LET’S WATCH. >> THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR -- TO
SIT ON THE SUPREME COURT.
THE HEARINGS CAUSED ME TO CHANGE
MY MIND.
MY MIND. HE HAS DEMONSTRATED A POTENTIAL
BIAS AND THAT THE SENATOR SHOULD
REALLY PAY ATTENTION TO IT.
>> THAT WAS THE GUY WHO WROTE
THE MAJORITY OPINION ON ROE, I
THINK.
THINK. WE’RE GOING WAY BACK WITH HIM.
LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU
SAW.
SAW. I THOUGHT -- I WONDERED, YOU
KNOW, WE HAD TO LIVE THROUGH,
YOU AND I, WE ALL LIVED THROUGH
BUSH V. GORE IN 2000, WHICH I
THOUGHT WAS A POLITICAL
DECISION, RIGHT?
DECISION, RIGHT? THE REMEDY WAS 5-4, AND IT WAS,
GIVE THE ELECTION TO BUSH.
THE REPUBLICANS.
THE REPUBLICANS. SO THE 5-4 REPUBLICAN COURT GAVE
IT TO A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE.
I GUESS YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO
ACT THAT WAY, AT LEAST.
YOU’RE ALLOWED TO VOTE THAT WAY,
BUT NOT ACT THAT WAY.
I’M BEING A LITTLE FACETIOUS
HERE.
HERE. BUT IF THIS GUY, KAVANAUGH,
WOULD HAVE SIT BACK ON THE COURT
BACK THEN, HE WOULD HAVE SAID,
SCREW THE CLINTONS!
WE’RE GOING WITH THIS GUY.
IT’S ALMOST THE WAY HE’S
TALKING.
TALKING. >> WELL, WE HAVE TO HOPE THAT
WON’T BE THE CASE IF HE IS
CONFIRMED.
CONFIRMED. BUT WITH JUSTICE STEVENS SAYING
THAT, NO ONE NEEDS TO TALK TO
ME.
ME. AND LOOK AT WHAT STEVENS DID
WHEN HE WAS ON THE COURT, AS
WELL.
WELL. IN MY OWN FIELD OF SENTENCING,
THE DECISION THAT MADE THE
BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IN MY
LIFETIME WAS BOOKER IN 2005.
AND THAT WAS SCLEELALIA AND STEV
ON THE SAME SIDE WORKING
TOGETHER IN THAT OPINION.
AND I’M NOT SURE THAT WE ARE
GOING TO SEE THAT -- THAT KIND