find and often seemingly are addicted to use again and again and again because it s part of the business model of those social media and big tech platforms. yes, i have i have faced the situation. one of my cases, the alliance of artists and recording companies vs. general motors is a case that i ended up writing a couple of opinions about and involved a statute of congress related to digital recording audio devices and whether or not royalties were required for the purchase of those kinds of devices, and it was enacted at a time in which recording technology was at a different stage than it is now. and disputes arose that came before me regarding whether or not to apply the royalty
case to me as a judge because i want in my lengthy opinions for people to understand the inputs. this, i say, is what i m considering because i lay out very, you know, detailed way everything that people have argued in all of the cases. when i m doing my interpretation, i am focused on the text of any statute or constitutional provisions. i look at the words that were used because i look at constitutional interpretation, those exercises consistent with my limited authority. i m conscious of not interpreting those texts consistent with what i believe the policy should be or what i think the outcome should be. i m trying in every case that
us to understand who past nominees have told about the mold of particular justices that they thought they followed in. if you have to tell the american people who you re closest to, who is that justice? who are those justices? thank you for the question, senator. i must admit that i don t really have a justice that i have mold i myself after or that i would. what i have is a record. i have 570 plus cases in which i have i m employed the methodology that i described and that shows people how i analyze cases. in every case i am proceeding from a neutral posture, in every case. i describe thoroughly all of the arguments that are made in the
a group of jewish and black parents wanting to create a school despite the fact that there was still legalized segregation. i agree with you that i think those moments are hopefully that will survive and the historic nature of this hearing and of hopefully her eventual confirmation to the supreme court. those will stick with us and i have to say my students are going to the hearing tomorrow. seeing students in the audience. seeing people around the country celebrate the historic nature of this confirmation hearing, i hope that that is what survey survives and that s what she has done a great job with is taking these deeply offensive lines of questioning then hitting home runs with them by talking about her personal story, achievements, but also the work of being fair and impartial in a system in which we know is not always the case. just a reminder for those joining us now. we are in a short break in the
tradition. in a case prior to that, the court defined it as the rights that are implicit in the ordered concept of liberty or the ordered concept of liberty. so there are standards for the courts to use to identify these types of rights. so did the supreme court use this test in roe or casey? in roe and casey, i don t know that the court used that formulation. i know that after casey, the court has determined not so much that the right to terminate a woman s pregnancy is fundamental. the right exists and it s subject to the framework in casey that allows for regulation