ignore a law even after a court upholds it, like you said? so ignore is not the concept there, as we discussed when we met. we had a good back and forth on that. the concept is prosecutorial s discretion. that s the concept i referred to, to explain the footnote you re referencing. in prosecutorial discretion, it s obviously firmly rooted. united states versus richard nixon case says the executive branch has the absolute exclusive authority and absolute discretion whether to prosecute a case. that s an exact quote from united states versus richard nixon. then heckler versus cheney says that also applies in the civil context. the limits so prosecutorial discretion is well recognized. in other words, the u.s. attorney s office might prosecute gang violence but let low-level marijuana offenses go
to apply it. it was applied by the majority opinion in the brown and williamson decision. it s the godfather of the major rules or major questions doctrine. justice breyer wrote about it in the 1980s. the supreme court adopted that. the brown and williamson case applied it in the case you referenced, justice scalia s opinion. what that opinion says is it s okay for congress to delegate various matters to the executive agencies to do rules, but on major questions of major economic or social significance, we expect congress to speak clearly before such a delegation. that had not happened, in my view, with respect to net neutrality. i felt bound by precedent, therefore, to apply the major questions of rules doctrine. i know in the decision you say you ll know the difference with you see it. i think that s why the other
path, starting with the 2008 whole foods case where whole foods attempted to buy wild oats markets. very complicated, so i m going to go to the fwguts of it from opinion. the majority of courts and the what happened here is republican majority ftc challenges the deal, and then you dissent. you apply your own pricing test to the merger. my simple question is, where did you get this pricing test? well, i would have affirmed the decision by the district judge in that case, which allowed the merger and the district judge, judge friedman, appointee of president clinton s to the district court, and i was following his analysis of the merger. case is very fact specific, really turns on whether the larger supermarkets sell organic foods or not. but where did you get the pricing test is what i want to know. you used different tests.
so the agency [ protester yelling ] i want to turn to what the majority felt about your dissent. i think they recognize that the dissent would threaten many, if not all, independent agencies. i think they specifically mentioned the ftc. i would add other ones like the federal reserve, securities and exchange commission. does it follow that you think these agencies are unconstitutional? no, i didn t say anything remotely like that, respectfully, senator. all i was talking about was a single-headed independent agency. that s like social security. the s.e.c., the ftc, those are the traditional, the nlrb, the fed. all multimember independent agencies. those agencies are all the
very, very vociferously. just to explain to our viewers what he s talking about and what he s actually not talking about, gary cohn, former director of the national economic council, in the book told an associate that there was a document that would have undone a treaty between the united states and south korea that gary cohn felt was important for the national security of the united states. it allowed it kept forces and equipment in south korea that would allow the united states to detect the launch of a north korean missile within seven seconds as opposed to 15 minutes from detecting equipment in alaska or near alaska. and that s why gary cohn, according to this associate in this woodward book, takes the document away so trump doesn t sign it because he says it will be bad for national security. i don t know what that document has to do with the new trade agreement, if anything. but that s what president trump is perhaps conflating when he pushes back on it. i don t know if this