I welcome everyone to this confirmation hearing on the nomination of->> Mr. Chairman.>> Judge Brett Kavanaugh.>> Mr. Chairman, the committee received just last night, less than 15 hours ago, 42,000 pages of documents that we have not had an opportunity to review or read or analyze.>> Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn.
>> From Judge Kavanaugh later this afternoon.>> Senators have had more than enough time and materials to adequately assess Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications, and so that's why I proceed.>> We are being asked to give advice and consent when the administration has not consented to give us over 100,000 documents, all of which detail a critical part of the judge's career.
I know, and I know you know, Judge Kavanaugh, that a good judge would not decide a case with only 7% of the key documents.>> We ought to have this loudmouth removed.>>
]>> And we shouldn't have to put up with this kind of stuff.>> The President's personal lawyer, campaign manager, deputy campaign manager and several campaign advisors have been entangled by indictments, guilty pleas, and criminal convictions.
So it's this backdrop that this nominee comes into.>> You've taken the unorthodox position that presidents should not be burdened with a criminal or civil investigation while in office.>> And I'm telling President Trump, you do some things that drive me crazy, you do some great things. You have never done anything better in my view than to pick Gorsic and Kavanaugh.
>> This is a president who's shown us consistently that he's contemptious of the rule of law. He has dismissed the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he wouldn't bend to his will. He harasses and threatens his own Attorney General on almost a daily basis, and it's that president who's decided you are his man.
You're the person he wants on the Supreme Court. You are his personal choice. So are people nervous about this? Are they concerned about it? Of course, they are.>> My judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written, a judge must interpret the constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.