1980s and that case, the Supreme Court instructed federal courts to defer an agencys interpretation of the law if the law is quote ambiguous, unquote. Some of your academic writings express skepticism about the Chevron Doctrine and concern that it allows an ad men straegs to impose its policy preference by avoiding the political process. I can understand why this is appealing to an administration. I also think its a threat to the separation of powers because it transfers power fro the congress and just dish area to the Executive Branch. Thats why ive reversed the Chevron Doctrine. Many members of this committee have cosponsored this ledges london attacks. As someone who has written extensively about the separation of powers, can you tell us why the separation of powers are so important and how it how it
helps to protect individual freedom. Spiration of powers protects individual lebt because it responds to the concern the framers had that Senator Klobuchar yesterday that the accumulati
you testified, and you testified repeatedly, that you had never received any stolen materials, you knew nothing about it to the public. you testified that if you had suspected anything untoward you would have reported it to the white house counsel, or would have raised it with senator hatch, especially as mr. miranda had worked for him. at the time we left it there. we didn t know any better. today, with the very limited amount of your white house record that has been provided to this committee and it is limited, for the first time we have beenably learn aboable to about your relationship with mr. miranda and your knowledge of these events. so my question is this, did mr. miranda ever provide you with highly specific information regarding what i or other democratic senators were planning on asking certain
night one night with your staff. i m sure we did talk about what other senators thought. that was the airline bill where as i think you recall speaker hastert was involved and we were out there with the l & b team. with that i worked hard with your staff. it struck me as not uncommon at all to be talking with your team what both sides think. it doesn t strike me as it was armed camps. no, and oftentimes it was not. here you are getting obviously very private democratic e-mails. you weren t concerned how mr. miranda got them? i m sure i m not sure about your premise. were you at all concerned where mr. miranda got some of the material he was showing you? i don t recall that. but the premise of your last question, i wanted to step back to that, i m not sure i agree
judicial nominees? senator, let my contextualize, let me see what you are putting up here. that question that, what s up there is 100% accurate. that s my memory. okay. so let me ask you this, that s never knew or suspected, true. never suspected anything untoward, true. and i suspected had i suspected something untoward i would have talked to judge govenz or senator hatch. that s all 100% true. that s what i already said. but did mr. miranda ever provide you with highly specific information regarding what i or other democratic senators were planning in the future to ask certain judicial nominees? well, one of the things we
why don t take one that you do have? you do have this information from mr. miranda and the very limited amount of material that the republicans are allowing us to see of your information about you, that at least did come through. but in journal 2003, let me go to something very specific, mr. miranda afforded you a letter from me and judiciary democrats to then majority leader tom daschle. the letter was clearly a draft, it had typos and it wasn t signed. somebody eventually, we never put it out, somebody ep ventually leaked it in this instance to fox news, i m not sure who, i could guess. it was a private letter. at the time i was shocked it existed, it had been leaked.