With more whimper than bang, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday (June 4) along party lines--Republicans 'yea,' Democrats, "nay"--to favorably report President Trump's nomination of Judge Justin Walker to fill a soon-to-be vacant seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

He is replacing Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who is retiring in September (the story initially said he was replacing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but Kavanaugh's seat was already filled by Neomi Rao.

Walker, 37, is currently a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, though with only about six month's experience in that post. Before that, he was a professor at the Brandeis School of Law (University of Louisville).  

The committee's members had already made their views known in a contentious nomination hearing back in May, but a handful of Democrats briefly reprised their opposition, tied to Walker's opposition to the Affordable Care Act during a time of pandemic and their fear he could not separate his political opinions from his judicial ones. 

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked if anyone with a straight face could say that Walker, with limited judicial experience, was the best person for a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land--it is the court of first jurisdiction over government agency decisions, including the FCC, as well as something of a warming bench, as it were, for potential Supreme Court Justices, a number of whom, including Kavanaugh and current Chief Justice John Roberts, have been plucked from its ranks. 

Durbin said the only reason Walker was nominated is that he was a friend of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and an outspoken critic of Obamacare.  

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), said Walker was another effort to remake the federal judiciary in the image of the extreme far right. 

Then a brief vote was held and Walker's nomination favorably reported to the Senate for a full vote.  

Related: FCC  Case Remand Could Weaken Defense of Decisions

Walker, who clerked for Kavanaugh on the D.C. circuit, said he was unabashed in his defense of Kavanaugh's view of the law, which meant the separation of powers, the limited role of judges and their fidelity to text. "It is my job to go where the law leads," he said, saying he was an "unabashed originalist."   

Given that the D.C. Circuit often hears challenges to agency decisions--the fight over the FCC's net neutrality rules have gone several rounds in that court, his view of such reviews is important. 

Walker told the committee back in May that in terms of judges reviewing agency actions, it is never the role of the judge to second-guess a political policy decision, especially when it comes from agency expertise. But he said it is always a judge's role to say what the law is, and when an agency has issued a regulation that is not supported by statute, to find that it is invalid, even if that regulation was great policy."  

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled an executive session for Thursday (June 4) to vote on a key judicial nomination, President Donald Trump's nominee, conservative Kentucky District Court Judge Justin Walker, to fill Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's vacant seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  

The D.C. Circuit is the court of primary jurisdiction over FCC decisions. 

The committee vetted Walker in a contentious hearing back in early May.

Walker is a former clerk for Kavanaugh when he was on the D.C. court and was an intern for Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, two figures toward whom there is considerable animus on the Democratic sides. He is unlikely to receive many, if any, Democratic votes.

Given that Republicans control the Senate, Walker is likely to make it to the bench, as he did to the district court last year after a Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing in which he received no Democratic votes. 

He is currently a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Before that, he was a professor at the Brandeis School of Law (University of Louisville).  

The Senate Judiciary Committee convened its first-ever COVID-19 era hearing Wednesday (May 6), and it was a contentious one.

The subject of the hearing was not actually COVID-19-related, a point unhappy Democrats made repeatedly, but the vetting of President Trump's nominee, conservative Kentucky District Court Judge Justin Walker, to fill the Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's vacant seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.  

The D.C. appeals court is the court of principal jurisdiction for challenges to FCC decisions.   

Walker is a former clerk for Kavanaugh when he was on the D.C. court and was an intern for Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  

He is currently a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Before that, he was a professor at the Brandeis School of Law (University of Louisville).  

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) counted down to the hearing's start, awaiting teleconference participants, as the online audience saw legislators, some newly bearded, separated by far more than six feet, including those participating by video conference.   

For his part, Graham said he thought Walker was well qualified. Given that Republicans control the Senate, Walker is likely to make it to the bench, as he did to the district court last year after a Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing in which he received no Democratic votes. 

Democrats suggested that Walker, at 37 and with only six months as a district judge, was too inexperienced to get a seat on the second most important court in the land, one whose decisions set national precedence--and from which a number of judges in addition to Brett Kavanaugh have been tapped for the Supreme Court.  

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) signaled she thought Walker was unworthy of a lifetime appointment given his dearth of bench experience. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said that if they were going to be summoned back from shelter-in-place, it should have been to deal with the current national emergency, say, dealing with thousands of healthcare workers with uncertain immigration status, or how the election is going to be run, or getting more protective gear for first responders.   

Related: COVID-19 Crisis Hits Industry 

Durbin said that if he asked Americans what the highest priority of the committee should be, it would not be this nominee, though he said he was sure it was the priority of Sen. McConnell. Durbin said he had still come, perhaps at some personal risk to himself.  

Sen Mike Lee (R-Utah) said it was acceptable, appropriate and necessary that the Senate return to the Capitol. He said if doctors and nurses and grocery store workers and truck drivers could be working 24/7, lawmakers could return from a six-week recess. "You can't pretend to legislate when Congress is out of session," he says.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) was the first to weigh in via videoconference--the audio was a bit cavernous. He echoed the concern that a judicial nomination was on the top of the committee's list during a pandemic.  

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who pointed out, in response to Feinstein's concerns about appellate inexperience, that there were numerous judges, including on Supreme Court, that had an academic, rather than appellate history. He said he thought that given the importance of judges, it was not inappropriate to start their return work there, that they could deal with those other important issues as well, and that they could "walk and chew gum" at the same time.  

Walker, who clerked for Kavanaugh on the D.C. circuit, said he was unabashed in his defense of that judge's view of the law, which meant the separation of powers, the limited role of judges and their fidelity to text. "It is my job to go where the law leads," he said, saying he was an "unabashed originalist."   

Walker declined to get too deeply into the issue of Chevron deference and whether courts had become too deferential to agency decisions. The Chevron doctrine is the Supreme Court precedent that courts give added weight to an agency's subject matter expertise. But he did signal that he would follow the law, even if it mean ruling against "great policy."   

Walker was asked when a judicial branch should defer to the executive branch--so-called Chevron deference. He said if a statute is clear, a regulation is valid or invalid. But if it is ambiguous, a judge considers whether an agencies interpretation is reasonable, if so it is upheld, if not, a regulation is invalid.  

Walker said it was not for him to critique binding precedents of the Supreme Court. It is still absolutely good law, he said. As an academic, before he became a judge, he said, he predicted where the Supreme Court might go, including not applying Chevron in some cases, but as a sitting judge now, and hopefully on the D.C. appeals court, he was bound by Chevron.  

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also weighed in remotely, and also said she thought they should he dealing with some other issue, like perhaps COVID-19 in prison and its impact on prisoners and guards. But she did thank Graham for allowing for remote participation.  

She brought up the Chevron doctrine and asked if Walker thought a judge is better positioned than an agency to weigh in on complicated issues. He said he was not running away from his scholarship as an academic and that there was a rigor of analysis that showed how he was trying to look at the facts, case by case.  

Klobuchar said that a third of the D.C. circuits are about agency appeals and that his academic writing did suggest how he would approach the Chevron doctrine. Klobuchar said he midnight have been making an academic argument, but she feared he would let judicial opinions trump agency expertise.   

Walker said that in terms of judges reviewing agency actions, it is never the role of the judge to second-guess a political policy decision, especially when it comes from agency expertise. But he said it is always a judge's role to say what the law is, and when an agency has issued a regulation that is not supported by statute, to find that it is invalid, even if that regulation was great policy."   

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) also weighed in remotely, pressing Walker on who coordinated his many TV and radio appearances (Durbin said there were some 162 appearances) in defense of Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court nomination gauntlet.

Walker said he was asked by, and advised by, an old friend, Matt Lattimer, to make statements about Kavanaugh on cable news outlets.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday (May 6) will vet the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's vacant seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

That is the court of principal jurisdiction for challenges to FCC decisions, and is the court that heard multiple network neutrality rule decision challenges. 

Related: D.C. Court Stays FCC Contract Decision 

The President's pick for the seat is conservative Justin R. Walker, a former clerk for Kavanaugh when he was on the D.C. court and a former intern for Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. 

Walker is currently a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Before that, he was a professor at the Brandeis School of Law (University of Louisville). He graduated from Duke University and Harvard Law School. 

President Donald Trump said Tuesday (Nov. 13) that he planned to nominate OIRA Administrator Neomi Rao to succeed now associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

That is the appeals court with principal jurisdiction over challenges to FCC decisions, like net neutrality and media ownership regulations.

According to the White House, Rao is a former law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

Before joining the law school. Rao was associate counsel and special assistant to President George W. Bush as well as counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she helped shepherd judicial nominations, like those of Kavanaugh to the High Court.

Her resume also includes law practice in the London office of Clifford Chance LLP.

She has a BA degree from Yale and a law degree from the University of Chicago.

"As a citizen, I suppose I should be somewhat relieved that she is slightly more centrist than other Trump appointees," said veteran attorney Andrew Schwartzman, who has argued before that court."

However, in my professional capacity, I am unhappy that we are likely going to have someone on the D.C. Circuit who has such a cramped view of government's power to regulate to protect the environment, competition and consumer rights."

Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, was pleased with the pick.

"Neomi Rao is an excellent choice to fill the DC Circuit seat of Brett Kavanaugh," he tweeted. "Despite the fact that she's a female scholar with outstanding credentials, who happens to be of Indian-American descent, she's likely to be opposed reflexively by those who oppose any Trump nominee."

Brett M. Kavanaugh has won Senate confirmation to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court and will take his seat on Tuesday, October 9.

In a rare and contentious Saturday session, the Senate voted 50 to 48 to approve Kavanaugh, a federal District Judge, for the seat previously held by Anthony Kennedy. Within hours after the confirmation vote, Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to the 53-year-old Kavanaugh after President Trump signed the appointment commission.

The new Justice -- 114th in the Court's history -- will take his seat on the far right side of the bench when the Court opens for business after the Columbus Day (also known as "Indigenous Peoples Day") weekend, establishing a solid 5-4 conservative majority on the Court for the first time in decades.

Although Kavanaugh has discussed his dissent on Network Neutrality, the Supreme Court's agenda for the coming term now has very few cases dealing with technology, telecommunications or media. Several cases scheduled to come before the Court may produce decisions that affect these sectors though -- especially the regulatory aspects. Kavanaugh's background has spurred speculation on how he will vote, but at this point there is no way to know how the court will rule on these cases.

Most notably, Gundy v. United States, will examine how Executive Branch Departments and independent federal administrative agencies -- such as the FCC or FTC -- handle powers that, it is argued, should be retained by Congress. Although the case does not involve current telecom/media or technical issues, the Court's decision may be a sign of a crackdown on excessive federal agency actions.

Similarly, in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper the Court will determine how to treat iPhone users who buy apps from Apple’s App Store. More broadly, the case could affect the rights of customers who purchase a good or service from a third party if allegedly abusive monopolist practices are involved..

Other SCOTUS cases this term involve property rights, the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause and abusive class-action settlements. The Court is also expected to hear an unusually large number of appeals seeking to overturn legal precedents in a variety of fields.

Key Senators are Not Directly Involved in Commerce Issues

The unusual 50 to 48 vote to confirm Kavanaugh came as Senators used a legislative loophole to assure that the new Justice won by two votes. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the only Republican not to vote for Kavanaugh, voted "present" rather than "no." That tactic offset a missing "yes" vote from Sen. Steve Daines (R-Montana) who could thereby skip the voting to attend his daughter's wedding on Saturday.

After an impassioned speech on Friday in which Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she would support Kavanaugh, extensive attention focused on Murkowski and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), the only Democrat to cross party lines and vote for Kavanaugh. These key Senators (Murkowski, Collins and Manchin) coincidentally all serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee. None of them currently is involved with the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

The ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee wants some answers from social media giants after reports of Russian-linked efforts to affect the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

In a letter to the CEOs of Google parent Alphabet, Facebook and Google, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) pointed to a report in The Washington Post about a Russian-linked Facebook account attempting to exploit the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh (“Confirm Judge Kavanaugh (Enough is enough)”) had previously focused on boycotting Nike and driving Republican voters to the polls.

He also pointed out that the German Marshall Fund’s project that tracks Russian influence said "Kavanaugh, Trump, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford" were the top four issues discussed on Russian-linked accounts.

Related: Ex-WJLA Weatherman Enters Kavanaugh Nomination Picture

By no later than Oct. 18, Pallone wants answers to the following questions.

1. "Have your companies discovered any foreign links to any anomalous behavior related to activities focusing on Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez or Julie Swetnick, including the practice of co-opting unrelated social media groups?"

2. "Are your companies working with third-party researchers and firms to identify accounts or pages with foreign links focusing on Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Blasey Ford, Ramirez or Swetnick?"

3. "Do your efforts to combat foreign influence include reviewing emerging divisive issues in American political and social life, such as the allegations of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh?"

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has called for a cloture vote Friday, which is a vote to end further debate and proceed to a floor vote on the nomination, which could happen as early as Saturday. Kavanaugh has already been confirmed by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote.

The White House says it has gotten the supplemental background check on Supreme Court nominee judge Brett Kavanaugh and spokesman Raj Shah signaled that investigation has not changed the President's mind about his nominee. 

"This is the last addition to the most comprehensive review of a Supreme Court nominee in history, which includes extensive hearings, multiple committee interviews, over 1,200 questions for the record and over a half million pages of documents," said Shah in an emailed statement. "With this additional information, the White House is fully confident the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.” 

The White House said it was sending the report to the Senate, suggesting they have ample time to review it. The Judiciary Committee said the report would not be released to the public.

"As with all background investigation (BI) files, the file and the information therein is held confidential under a 2009 memorandum of understanding between the White House and the committee," said the office of Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). "All 100 senators and a very limited number of cleared committee staff can have access to the information in the BI file. This is how such files have been handled for several administrations.

Out of concern for potential leaks, the report will be held in the Office of Senate Security.

It is unclear whether that FBI check included interviews with either Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford, who accused him of sexual assault and misconduct while both were in high school. There were reports late Wednesday (Oct. 3 that neither had been interviewed).

Senate Democrats have said that without an interview with Ford, they will not consider that check sufficient.

Ford's attorneys reportedly were withholding therapist logs and polygraph information from the Senate Judiciary Committee citing the FBI's failure to interview her.

On the Senate floor, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said he had been briefed on the report and that there was "nothing new" and that "no witness can confirm any allegation against Kavanaugh." It was unclear just how many witnesses had been interviewed for the background check.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees communications issues, tweeted his support for Kavanaugh after his briefing.

[embed]https://twitter.com/SenJohnThune/status/1047902623641350144[/embed]

Related: Ex-WJLA Weatherman Enters Kavanaugh Nomination Picture

Kavanaugh has faced multiple accusations of sexual misconduct or assault, and questions have been raised about his truthfulness about how much he drank in high school and college and how much it affected him. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations and suggested while he liked beer, and still does, he did not drink to the point of blacking out or becoming belligerent.

While the White House said it was confident the Senate will confirm Kavanaugh, that looked anything but a sure bet, with key Republicans having yet to weigh in. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has scheduled a procedural vote for Friday, saying of the protesters buttonholing his members in the halls of Congress or their homes that "there is

The nomination has further divided Capitol Hill and the country, with protests from women's groups and a debate exploding on cable TV and social media as the #MeToo movement moves from board room and the screening room to the dorm room and a broader indictment of how many men have viewed and treated women.

Kavanaugh is well known in communications circles as a judge on the D.C. federal appeals court, which oversees FCC decision challenges. Kavanaugh is on the record saying the FCC's 2015 Open Internet order was illegal and should have been overturned.

While the FCC has repealed that order, a request that the Supreme Court hear the ISP appeal of the 2015 regulatory order remains before the High Court, though it is unclear whether that court will grant that hearing. If so, and if Kavanaugh's nomination is confirmed--an increasingly serious "if"--Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), has asked him to recuse himself, though Kavanaugh was not willing to agree to that, saying at his hearing that he would not comment on any decision that could come before the High Court.

Last week’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh helped propel Fox News to a primetime weekly ratings win, according to Nielsen.

Fox News averaged 3.2 million viewers in primetime to top all cable networks during the week of Sept. 24 to Sept. 30, said Nielsen. The network’s performance was bolstered by its coverage of the Sept. 27 Kavanaugh hearings, for which the network averaged 5.7 million total viewers and 1.1 million viewers within the target 25-54 demo from 10 am to 7 pm, according to Nielsen.

ESPN finished second with 2.5 million viewers, followed by MSNBC with 2.1 million viewers. CNN, USA and HGTV all tied for fourth with 1.1 million viewers.

Fox also dominated the total day chart, averaging 2 million viewers in taking the top spot for the 38th consecutive week. MSNBC, CNN, ESPN and Nickelodeon rounded out the top five on the chart, according to Nielsen. 

The Senate hearing with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, got plenty of TV coverage — it was roadblocked across most cable news and network-affiliated TV-station outlets — just not quite as much TV coverage as C-SPAN had wanted.

Viewers may have noticed that shots of Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) were always slightly side shots rather than full-on faces.

While the Senate Judiciary Committee suggested C-SPAN would have four cameras in the hearing room — the cable-backed public affairs net was providing the TV pool feed for the commercial broadcast and cable networks — that did not prove to be the case.

In providing TV coverage of Hill hearings, C-SPAN usually has three cameras, one on either side to get the Democrats and the Republicans, then one in the front to capture the witnesses. But it sometimes uses a fourth camera in the back of the room to get a wide shot and a straight-on view of the chairman and ranking members, who are in the center. A C-SPAN source said it has used that fourth camera many times.

In an email outlining the video coverage, the committee said:

“The room already has three robocameras built in for the purposes of streaming the hearing online. This feed cannot be used to pool for media outlets. Typically, C-SPAN sets up three cameras in the room to serve as the TV pool feed. … For this hearing, C-SPAN has asked for a fourth camera. That equals seven total video cameras. For context, during the first four days of Judge Kavanaugh’s hearing, the room had a minimum of 28 video cameras in it.”

That clearly sounds to The Wire like someone at the committee thought C-SPAN would be granted that camera, since it used the seven-camera figure for comparison purposes.

C-SPAN confirmed it asked for that fourth camera to get the straight-on wide shot, but said that request was denied, with no reason given. The C-SPAN source said it could have been space limitations.

A Senate Judiciary Committee spokesperson had not returned a request for comment at press time about the missing camera and the reason why it was denied.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted 11 to 10 to favorably report the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but with a big caveat, a one-week delay of a full floor vote to conduct an FBI investigation into the sexual allegation charges will be necessary for one of the Republican swing votes, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), to support the nominee (presumably if the investigation clears Kavanaugh).

Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who had scheduled the vote for 1:30, says he supported that.

Senate Democrats have been demanding the investigation into the sexual assault charges levied by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh.

"The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today," said Grassley's office Friday afternoon.

The committee can't actually require an FBI investigation, but Flake signaled he would have to have one to do the "due diligence" for the American people.

It was a last-minute twist that had media outlets scrambling to figure out what was happening.

After Sen. Grassley graveled the hearing closed, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) ranking member of the committee, was unclear what had actually been voted. She thought there was an amendment calling for the FBI investigation, but Grassley said it was just a "gentlemen's and women's agreement."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pointed out that it would be up to the Senate leader--Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)--to decide to delay the vote while the committee asks the FBI to investigate, which will be up to the White House now to approve, or not.

President Trump said after the vote that whatever Sen. Grassley thought was necessary was OK with him.

Flake reportedly exited the committee hearing room not long before the planned 1:30 vote without providing expected remarks and following an impassioned speech by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). It also came after Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) presented a graphic from Kavanaugh's calendar for the relevant months in 1982 showing what appeared to be a party with beer and some of the people identified by Kavanaugh's sexual assault accuser, Christine Blasey Ford (see graphic).

Flake was also confronted by protesters as he tried to make his way to the floor earlier in the day.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said she had suggested a week-long investigation as had others on her side of the aisle.

The Senate Republican Majority on the Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court for 1:30 p.m. Friday.

Democrats strongly objected, but the motion carried 11 to 8, with two Democrats refusing even to vote because they said it was unfair.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) made a motion that the committee subpoena Mark Judge, the friend of Brett Kavanaugh who allegedly participated in an alleged sexual assault.

Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) read a letter from Judge explaining why he did not want to appear before the committee: "As a recovering alcoholic and a cancer survivor, I have struggled with depression and anxiety. As a result, I avoid public speaking. The motion was defeated, 11 to 10, again, along purely party lines."

Grassley reiterated that Judge had already sworn that he had no knowledge of the alleged party or attack.

Blumenthal said that was not an acceptable substitute for testifying and CNN reported that some Democrats then left the room--there were still other nominations to consider.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has denied yet another allegation of sexual misconduct, this one an anonymous e-mail received by Democratic Judiciary Committee member Corey Booker (D-N.J.).

That is according to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which released the e-mail as well as Kavanaugh's flat denial that "any such event ever happened."

"We have no reason to assign the letter credibility, and even if we did, we’d have no way to investigate the allegation as it was made anonymously and cannot be corroborated," said Taylor Foy, communications director for the committee.

The newest sexual assault/misconduct allegation--there have been a total of five so far, two anonymous--came on the eve of the committee's hearing (https://www.multichannel.com/news/judiciary-outlines-potentially-historic-kavanaugh-hearing) on the first allegation, by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, featuring testimony of both Ford and Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh has denied all allegations against him.

The broadcast networks’ news departments are prepping their coverage for the Brett Kavanaugh hearing the morning of Sept. 27, as the Supreme Court nominee and Christine Blasey Ford testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh is nominated for a Supreme Court seat. Ford has alleged that he sexually assaulted her in 1982.

Related: Judiciary Outlines Potentially Historic Kavanaugh Hearing

The hearing starts at 10 a.m. in Washington. CNN's Sunlen Serfaty said there will be three cameras in the hearing room. "One camera focused on the witness, one camera focused on the questioner, and one cuts camera,” said the CNN Congressional correspondent, according to Brian Stelter.

Related: Kavanaugh Concedes to Past, Cringeworthy, Acts

NBC News goes live at 9:30 a.m. with Lester Holt, NBC Nightly News anchor, heading up the coverage. Today co-anchor/NBC News chief legal correspondent Savannah Guthrie, NBC News political director Chuck Todd, Megyn Kelly Today host Megyn Kelly and chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell pitch in.

ABC News goes live at 10 a.m. Thursday, as chief anchor George Stephanopoulos leads network coverage. World News Tonight anchor David Muir anchors from Capitol Hill, where senior congressional correspondent Mary Bruce provides live updates. Terry Moran, ABC News chief foreign correspondent, reports from the Supreme Court. Correspondents Jonathan Karl, Cecilia Vega, Sunny Hostin, Dan Abrams and Cokie Roberts also contribute.

CBS News is set to go live at 10 a.m., too. CBS This Morning, which airs 7-9 a.m., will originate from Washington. Morning anchors Gayle King, Norah O’Donnell and John Dickerson, and CBS Evening News anchor Jeff Glor, will anchor coverage of the hearing. Contributors include Nancy Cordes, Jan Crawford, Ed O’Keefe, Weijia Jiang and Paula Reid.

Fox News Channel coverage will be co-anchored by Special Report’s Bret Baier and The Story’s Martha MacCallum. Additional contributions will come from Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace, Fox News @ Night’s Shannon Bream, senior political analyst Brit Hume, senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano and contributors Marie Harf and Mollie Hemingway.

CNN has Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper anchoring in Washington. Pitching in will be Dana Bash, John King, Gloria Borger, Nia-Malika Henderson, Joan Biskupic and Jeffrey Toobin.

CNN will live-stream the hearing beginning at 8:30 AM and won’t require log-in to the user’s pay-TV provider. It will be available on CNN.com and through mobile devices.

The broadcast networks will use their 24/7 platforms to help cover the day’s events. That includes ABC News Live, CBSN and MSNBC.

With media outlets preparing for a full-court press on the 10 a.m. hearing into sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the committee office of Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has released a rundown of "logistics and timing" for that hearing.

Related: B&C Guide to Network Coverage of Kavanaugh Hearing 

Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford are the only witnesses, which was a point of some contention for those who argued other accusers or potential witnesses should be heard from. 

The hearing gavels in at 10 a.m., with Ford sworn in and giving her opening statement, with no time limit. Ford will answer questions, with each senator getting a five-minute round of questions, which the committee said was at Ford's request. alternating between Republicans and Democrats. 

Related: Kavanaugh Concedes Past Cringeworthy Acts

The Republican majority has brought in an independent prosecutor experienced in sex crimes to ask questions as well. Any senator who wants another committee member or staff counsel to ask in their stead will be permitted to do so.

Related: New Kavanaugh Accuser Emerges

The hearing could be a marathon and the chairman's office could not estimate how long it would take, which it said will depend on "the length of the chairman and ranking member’s opening statements; length of Dr. Ford’s opening statement; length of Judge Kavanaugh’s opening statement; length of breaks, which each witness can request. 

In addition to being roadblocked on broadcast and cable TV, it will be streamed on the committee site here:

The Judiciary Committee has tentatively scheduled a vote on Kavanaugh's nomination for Friday, Sept. 28.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says the allegations of sexual misconduct/assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "deserve to be heard" and investigated.

That came in a statement Monday (Sept. 17) three days before the planned Sept. 20 vote on Kavanaugh's nomination and a day after his accuser, Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford, revealed her identity and agreed to talk with the committee about the incident--she says an inebriated Kavanaugh, as a high school student, tried to grope her over her clothing.

Related: Judge Kavanaugh Willing to Talk with Judiciary About Allegations

The charge had initially been anonymous, but Hill Democrats had referred it to the FBI for investigation.

In a lengthy statement, Grassley did not say he would delay the hearing--though that appears increasingly likely--but he did say he would "hear her out in an appropriate, precedented and respectful manner."

President Donald Trump later in the day Monday (Sept. 17) signaled there could indeed be a delay in order to vet the allegations.. He said in a press conference that he wished the Democrats could have produced the information sooner, but that "we want to go through the process." He pointed out that Kavanaugh had met with Feinstein, who he said had not brought up the allegations.The President said if it took a little delay to go through the process, "then it takes a little delay," but continued to endorse Kavanaugh as a great nominee and judge.

What Grassley did not think was appropriate was that ranking Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinsten (D-Calif.) had waited until just before the hearing to make the allegations known and refer them to the FBI.

He said that would traditionally entail "phone calls with at least Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford." He said he had tried to schedule those in consultation with Feinstein's office. "I asked Senator Feinstein’s office yesterday to join me in scheduling these follow-ups. Thus far, they have refused. But as a necessary step in evaluating these claims, I’ll continue working to set them up."

Democrats would almost certainly want that follow-up with Ford to come in an open hearing, which would take longer to schedule and allow for the public to be witness--the Dems have been pushing to delay Kavanaugh's vote until after the midterm election.

“Unfortunately, committee Republicans have only known this person's identity from news reports for less than 24 hours," said Grassley, "and known about her allegations for less than a week. Senator Feinstein, on the other hand, has had this information for many weeks and deprived her colleagues of the information necessary to do our jobs. The Minority withheld even the anonymous allegations for six weeks, only to later decide that they were serious enough to investigate on the eve of the committee vote, after the vetting process had been completed. It’s deeply disturbing that the existence of these allegations were leaked in a way that seemed to preclude Dr. Ford’s confidentiality.

Still, he said, "we are working diligently to get to the bottom of these claims.”

Kavanaugh is currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the court of principal jurisdiction over appeals of FCC and other federal agency decisions. Kavanaugh is on the record being against the FCC's 2015 Open Internet order, adopted under then Democratic chair Tom Wheeler.

Net neutrality could come before the high court from either an existing ISP challenge to the 2015 rules, which the high court has already been asked to weigh in on, or a challenge to the FCC's decision last last year under Republican chair Ajit Pai to eliminate those rules and roll back the 2015 order's reclassficiation of ISPs under Title II common carrier authority.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh signaled he will follow the Times v. Sullivan precedent that journalists can say anything about public figures so long as it is not untrue, and further, that the untruth was reported with "actual malice."

That came in day three of his Supreme Court nomination hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The issue was raised by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who was looking for such assurances against the backdrop of President Donald Trump's threats against the New York Times and other media outlets, including invoking libel laws and threatening to sue over negative coverage he has branded a conspiracy against him.

Asked if he thought under Times v. Sullivan would allow a public figure to sue a news outlet under any lesser standard than "actual malice."

[embed]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037485664433070080[/embed]

Kavanaugh said the Supreme Court had repeatedly applied that standard, as had he in his current post as judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. "The precedent has now been applied over and over and over again. I'm not aware of much effort to deviate from that standard," he said. 

When asked about how he would apply a reporters privilege to protect a confidential source, Kavanaugh said there was important precedent that makes clear the importance of the relationships of reporters and their sources is very important. I understand the role of journalists in bringing some light to American democracy."

The White House released a list of current judges under the heading: "President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court list," and a familiar name to communications case-watchers was on it.

That would be conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is the principal court of jurisdiction for challenges of FCC decisions.

Candidate Trump had issued a list of 21 candidates that did not include Kavanaugh, an omission that drew the attention of The National Review.

Just last month, Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion finding that the FCC was within its authority to seek more input before deciding whether to require broadcasters to simulcast emergency alert information in languages other than English.

He also dissented from the Circuit's decision to grant IPSs request for an en banc review of a court panel's decision not to reconsider upholding the FCC's Title II-based Internet order, saying the FCC order was unlawful and should have been vacated.

Kavanaugh was appointed to the circuit in 2006 by President George W. Bush, for whom he had been Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary to the President.