it was an extremely unpopular decision that wanted to protect his constitutional rights. and for ensuring that here is something unpopular. we can t protect his rights. yet, when you were asked why you feel how you do know, on the independent counseling statute, you feel differently than you did in the 1990s. and you mentioned it to senator feingold that you feel differently because of 9/11. and that the president needs to be given more reign, i guess, to focus on national security issues. i am trying to square that. i think that your explanation of how you ruled this case is admirable. i m not sure about your
that. i have talked about that in the u.s. telecom decision. they have not yet provided specific guidance. do you look at the number of people affected, the amount of money involved, kind of attention it has received in congress, the kind of attention it has received in the public, and you make a judgment based on that, whether this is the kind of rule, as justice breyer first explained, really feeling smaller parts of the statute, or a big social or economic decision. there are lots of factors you could look into to determine that. also, it seems to me, and relevant to a number of other comments that you have received, if the congressional statute that is passed, that is vague, overbroad, that the room for agency discretion is greater. does that play a role in the
the people who are affected by our decisions. we love the process because we are used to process, and it helps us make better, more informed decisions. thank you. let me talk a little bit about what i touched on yesterday. obviously, the independents in the judiciary, was our issue is here. most important questions i think you have been asked her about that. senator coons and i, along with a few others, we travel to southern africa a few months ago. we met there with the constitutional court of south africa. and at a time when just a few weeks before, or months before, they had rules against the sitting president, a few other things. but rendered a decision against the president of the country, the executive, that allowed the parliament to go in and remove it.
i tried to make clear to you senator coons and otherwise that i have repeatedly discussed the tradition of that kind of system with approval in the journal article that i wrote in the late 1990s as well, most recently in the phh decision, distinguishing that. the old independent counsel system, and more, which dealt with it, nonexistent, and i have always spoken approvingly of the general system and the tradition of special counsel. well, thank you. and i hope that puts it to rest. like i said, i have been perplexed as to why it is that the system that ended in 1919 then, why it was such concern. and i hope that s any confusion that has been created by those attacks doesn t create and want to create an impression that you are making any comments about
reach a more informed decision. each of us will be more prepare prepared. and we have learned from the lawyers, but also from each other, the questions, similar to the way that this process works. you hear about other senators. that s mark s thoughts for you to ask questions. so too for the judges. then we conference right after the oral argument. we give our tentative use, we debate and discuss, and it is very collegial. there is a lot of fluidity. it is not here is my position and that s it. for 12 years, i have never been in a single conference where any judge has said anything like that. here s what i am thinking. we go around and go interns, we discuss it, reach a tentative resolution. then we write it up. one judge is assigned to write the decision, that is an intense