The Supreme Court has never answered that question, and it is among the most important at Kavanaugh's hearing since Trump could face a subpoena in special counsel Robert Mueller's Russian Federation investigation.
Kavanaugh told lawmakers that, keeping in line with that "nominee precedent", he will give "no hints, no forecasts, no previews" during the hearings - with a possible exception of questions about older cases. "So sad to see!"
Shrieking protesters also disrupted the hearing. If that's the basis of his approach to jurisprudence, one has to wonder whether Kavanaugh really would vote to overturn Roe even if he had the chance. Security personnel removed dozens of demonstrators from the room.
This may well have been an attempt to follow judicial confirmation hearing etiquette under which nominees are not supposed to comment on the outcomes of particular cases or preview their positions on issues that might come up before the Court.
"We can not possibly move forward. And therefore, we are there to do our job", said Senator Mazie Hirono. An additional 42,000 documents were released Monday night.
But Democrats raised objections from the moment Chairman Chuck Grassley gaveled the committee to order.
Kavanaugh also described United States v. Nixon, the supreme court ruling that ordered then President Richard Nixon to turn over secret White House recordings toward the end of the Watergate investigation, as "one of the greatest moments in American judicial history".
"The Democrats are focused on procedural issues because they don't have substantive points strong enough to derail this nomination", said Sen. But with Trump's fellow Republicans holding a slim Senate majority, and with no sign of any of them opposing the nomination, it remains likely Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the lifetime job on top USA judicial body. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who moved to adjourn.
Noting that Kavanaugh has more than 300 opinions and submitted around 17,000 pages with his committee questionnaire, Grassley is likely to stress that he's released thousands of pages and that he's only asked for non-privileged documents and that Democratic requests for every document would have taken months to complete.
In a preview of the tough questions Kavanaugh will face Wednesday, Democratic senators said they would press the judge on his views about abortion, gun control, and executive power. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says opponents' grandstanding over withheld documents pertaining to Judge Brett Kavanaugh's time in the White House is misplaced. No senator, Democrat or Republican, should gamble that he really in his heart doesn't believe these things are permissible. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, joined the hearing in the audience for a while.
Irked by a protester who interrupted him, Sen. But the Democrat frustrations that boiled over on Tuesday had been simmering for more than two years. Senators have reviewed almost 200,000 pages that can not be disclosed to the public, and the Trump administration is withholding an additional 100,000 pages from Congress, claiming that those documents are covered by presidential privilege. Senate Republicans refused to consider Obama's nomination of federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland for the vacancy.
"I understand the importance of the precedent set forth in Roe v Wade", he said. The court begins its next term in October.
Wednesday was a little calmer, after the opening day on Tuesday quickly became a cacophony of yelling protesters incensed at the choice of Kavanaugh and repeated interruptions by Democratic senators angry at the late disclosure of documents by the White House about the judge's track record.
I am not saying this is the case.
"I revere the Constitution".
Feinstein had asked the question in the context of U.S. v. Nixon, the 1974 unanimous Supreme Court ruling ordering then-President Nixon to hand over tape recordings from his White House that ultimately led to his resignation.
Schools: A parent's right to make decisions about their children's schooling can be traced back to two Supreme Court decisions in the 1920s. He has only reportedly made one comment about it, supposedly telling a ME senator that it is "settled law".