violated the law by seizing the steel mills. this is a time of war. a time of war where lots of americans were killed. the supreme court is under pressure to defer to the president s war effort. in a 6-3 decision, what s interesting to me, justice clark, and we don t usually talk about him in the decision, but he was appointed by president truman to the supreme court. what a moment of judicial independence there, to rule in that case. you think about justice jackson, who had been working for president roosevelt. he dissents in the korematsu case. says, letting racism like this is like letting a loaded women lie around. dissents against president roosevelt s decision. justice jackson s justice
there s probably other things you don t need to go into detail, but you have president president bush appointed you. are there other cases that there s been other cases, presumably, you ve ruled against the administration or the person that appointed you. absolutely, mr. chairman. there were a slew of cases on everything from freedom of information act to some of the administrative law cases. okay. the hamdan one comes to mind because of the importance of the case. i ruled it was unlawful. yeah. now, did anyone ask you to make any promises or assurances at all about the way you d rule in certain cases? no.
collegial judge, civil. 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 i want both parties to walk out at oral argument and say he had an open mind, gave me a fair shake and i think i have tried that for 12 years. everything you do as a judge matters in terms of being a good judge. oral argument. how you decide. those are the qualities. i guess the last thing i always remember about it is the thing i said, my mom told me if in the first ins tantd, judging is not just about theory. it is not theory. it is just what a law review article is. judging is real people in the
of their constituents care about. roe v. wade obviously is huge in addition to executive power and i would expect also this notion of just beyond the executive power related to donald trump, also how activist a judge is he going to be to unravel long-standing precedent on other issues, as well? there s an age discrimination case coming up before the court, for example, on whether states and localities, whether localities subject to age discrimination cases if they have 20 employees or fewer. these matter to people in the daily lives. i would expect to hear some of that. i absolutely agree that republicans jobs here to establish that pretd kavanaugh is not an activist judge and will pay attention to precedent. it will be interesting to see if democrats come hard. you have both senator durbin and senator leahy who remembered when brett kavanaugh was not so
the documents ahead of time, not dumped some night before and 100,000 pages withheld entirely because of executive privilege. there s a lot of i think unfortunate arguments being made by the republican senate right now. why doesn t brett kavanaugh interpret and say i ll put them forth? they re mine. transparency. i happen to see your twitter account yesterday. why not? and your pie in the sky hopes that someone would just launch a surprise into this carefully choreographed hearing. listen. if you re brett kavanaugh, they re your documents. looking at the chaos. hey, clean it all up! there s a big worry, right? the ticking clock in the november election. and that s what judge kavanaugh has to be worried about and the supporters. there s nothing going on in october at the court, yes. first monday. there s no big case that s being heard and same republican senate that didn t even give merritt garland a hearing. i think that s really the issue. wouldn t that indicate he is