that s what the next case is about. and i would probably side with you on that because if you open your inn up for public accommodation, you have to take anybody. but if you re asking someone to specifically perform an act in concert with an act that is contrary to their religious values, that s different and you know the difference. i know rick that s not what you stated. rick, you keep saying these cases are so easy. watch what happens. watch how gay people are being denied service. i will watch that. i will watch that. denied service. because i will stand with you on that. just like after the civil rights act passed i don t know anybody that shares my philosophy that won t stand with you on that issue. well, this is why these hearings are interesting. don t distort it. forget the hearing, let s just listen to you guys. job king is with us as well. it looks like the president and the republican majority have the
i don t make decisions by myself. every case has been in a panel of at least three judges. and you learn from each other when you re deciding cases, you work from each other when you re deciding cases and so having collegiality and civility as justice kennedy showed us so powerfully repeatedly with how he conducted himself over the years. so i think i ve tried to be a very collegial judge. i ve tried to be civil.
brett kavanaugh s vote won t be in play the same way which will pull the court to the right on social policy issues and probably executive power issues. we know he won t reveal too much and the one thing that democrats could count on if they can count on anything is something new coming out. something surprising, for example, like what happened with clarence thomas but that didn t sink him and i think that what we ll see is democrats trying to get him to reveal himself but a certain inevitability here. and the other thing we should keep in mind here is the context. for a generation republicans have been able to build up and to make a case to the republican base that the supreme court
to follow the law as written, the precedents of the supreme as articulated subject to the rules of stare decisis. you were appointed to the d.c. circuit by george w. bush. i think it is fair to say you were close to president bush. you worked for him for a number of years. you can you give us some example of cases in which you ruled against the bush administration notwithstanding that president bush was the one who put you on the bench? senator, the most prominent example is the homdon case, the military commissions case. that was a signature prosecution of the bush administration. they had established with congressional authorization eventually after a unilateral effort didn t succeed in the court, established military commissions. the military commissions were to try al qaeda terrorists who had committed wash crimes and one
i want, mr. chairman, the losing party, the losing party in every case to come out and say kavanaugh gave me a fair shake, he was well prepared, he wrote a clear opinion, he explained everything, i disagree but at least i get it so i want the losing party and both parties to walk out at oral argument saying he gave me a share fake and i think i ve done that for 12 years. everything you do as a judge matters in terms of being a good judge oral argument, writing opinions, how you decide. so those are the qualities. the last thing i always remember is the thing my mom told me in the first instance. judging is not just about theory. it s not theory. it s not just what a law review article is. judging 1 real people in the