regulatory agencies and about ensuring the bureaucracy abide by the law no matter the policy goals liberal or conservative. do you believe there s nothing extreme or ideological when the supreme court said in marbury versus madison it s the province of the judicial department to say what the law is, end quote. marbury versus madison is the cornerstone of the law in this country. i don t know anybody who wants to go back and reconsider that. i hope not. i feel the same way. last week the new york times reported the primary line of attack about you is you are, quote, no friend of the little guy, end quote. we ve had that come up time and again in the proceedings in the last few days and a harvard law
the surveillance act known as fisa. you helped prepare the public defense of the program. in draft testimony you prepared for attorney general gonzalez defending the program you wrote this, quote, these authorities are vested in the president and they are inherent in the office. they cannot be diminished or legislated away by other co-equal branches of government. paul clement, president bush s solicitor general quote, found this proposition unconvincing and it was removed from the testimony. do you still believe the president has inherent authority, this is important, to intercept the communications of americans in the united states that cannot be legislated away by congress? goodness, no, senator. good. and i didn t believe it at the time. as i recall, again my recollection and i d be happy to
hard case has arrived once it s decided it takes on the force of president becomes an easy case in the future and contributes further to the determination of our law end quote if more recent opinions have called into opinion the rationale of the original case and you also suggested there may be circumstances where it s appropriate to revisit precedent. specifically you wrote that it may be appropriate to reconsider a decision where it has become a quote, presidential island surrounded by a sea of contrary law, end quote. so there may be times to reconsider certain opinions if more recent opinions have called into question the rationale of the original decision. i think all of us would agree,
not our job, end quote and quote, it simply isn t our business, end quote. what is an appellate court s job in your view? a limited vital role in our separated powers. a judge is there to make sure that ever person poor or rich, mighty or meek gets equal protection of the law. this is chisel above the supreme court entrance in vermont marble though i believe the lincoln memorial is made of colorado marble. and that is a profound and radical promise that every person it protected by our laws equally. and in all of human history that may be the most radical promise
opinion or like another opinion all right. ite i ll let you off the hook. thank you. in heller the majority opinion written by justice scalia recognized that of course the second amendment was not unlimited end quote. justice scalia wrote laws restricting access to guns by the mentally ill or laws forbidding gun possession in schools were consistent with the limited nature of the second amendment. justice scalia also wrote that quote, weapons most useful in military service, m-16 rifles and the like may be banned, end quote, without infringing on the second amendment. do you agree with that statement that under the second amendment weapons that are most useful in military service m-16 rifles and the like may be banned?