jackson s concurrence in youngstown which is, of course, what has become the law, that three-part category one, two, three, again, he writes the concurrence in youngstown. why is that a moment of judicial independence? he d taken positions contrary to that in the administration of roosevelt. he sees it differently as an independent judge. chief justice berger. united states versus nixon. writes the opinion, unanimous. moments of judicial independence. it s resisting public pressure, political pressure. it s treating everyone equally, no matter where you are, what station. when i became a judge on the d.c. circuit, i had a case,
as if you re making all the decisions, as i said yesterday, i m joining a team of nine if i were fortunate enough to be confirmed and that means something. it means something in sports. it means something in judging. i have not been making decisions by myself. every case is in a panel of at least three judges and you learn from each other when you re deciding cases. you work with each other when you re deciding cases. and so, having c [ shouting ] that s very important. because those great moments that i was talking about at the beginning like united states versus nixon, like brown v. board, the court came together in unanimous decision and the uninam i have tried to be a very
let these people have free speech and interrupt the other 300 million people listening. this is your opportunity to speak to the american people. let them make a judge about it. if they want to affect what the ore other 300 million people hear from you, it s too bad. you proceed now. homdon is one of bin laden s associates before 9/11. he is prosecuted before a military commission. signature prosecution of the bush administration. comes to the d.c. circuit. i write the opinion, saying it s unconstitutional. violates principles. you ll never have a nominee who has ruled for a more unpopular defendant, than ruling for homdon. why did i do that in that case?
pete, one further quick question and that is, is it too simplistic to frame this as some of the democrats have that the president has selected a judge for a period of time, perhaps months from now, when he will be judged for what has taken place in office? no. i don t think that s simplistic at all. i think that s something to ask him about. they re going to ask him if, for example, you know, yes, the president nominated him. he s beholden to him. what will be his views toward the president if he gets on the court and would he recuse himself if a case like this, a case about, for example, subpoenaing the president, came to the court. pete williams in our washington bureau. very best we have to cover proceeding like this. appreciate it very much. we re going to scoot to a quick commercial break. obviously, when we come back, we will have gavel to gavel coverage of this first initial morning session. the first day of questions and
trouble ruling against a president who appointed you and against the executive branch in any case before you. you partly talked about independence but apply it specifically to a ruling against a president or the executive branch, generally. thank you, mr. chairman. to begin with, you re correct, no one is above the law in our constitutional system. federalist 69, hamilton, makes clear all the ways the executive bran branch as designed by the framers of the constitution was different from the monarchy. the branch is subject to the law. subject to the court system. that s an important part of federalist 69. it is an important part of the constitutional structure. in general, so, too, we as judges are separate from the congress. we are not supposed to be influenced by political pressure