consistently. 4, can t remakes the rules on your preferences. [protesters in background]. it may be case that the nfl decides that a targeting penalty doesn t work. number 5, you have to have backbone or courage. number 6, tune out the crowd. number 7, an open mind. you think you know what case is coming before you and people may present arguments different than thought. number 8, you need the demeanor and temperament. number 9, you have to work with your colleagues and number 10, you have to be goods at explaining. rule number 2, the rules have to exist before the game. you go from a paragraph by paragraph structure. you pause and have a long 2 b and you explain about precedent. can you give us a 60 or 90-second view about how precedent relates to having rules of the game before the game? yes. precedent is important for stability and predictability.
fourth branch of our government and that they, quote, pose a significant threat to individual liberty, unquote. so does it follow that you think that other independent agencies are also constitutionally suspect? so the supreme court is, of course, upheld since 1935 humphries executor decision that the concept and practice of independent agencies. on the cfpb decision, the structure of that agency deviated from the traditional historical practice of independent agencies. you think the humphries case that was 80 years ago was correctly decided. it s a precedent of the supreme court, and it s been reaffirmed many times. but on that cfpb case, i need to get this out, which is i did not say that the agency had to stop operating. it could continue operating, and it still operates. my constitutional concern was the structure with the single member head, which had never
going to face political pressure and still enforced the promise of the constitution. you think about united states versus nixon which i have identified as one of the greatest moments in american judicial history where chief justice berger, who was appointed by president nixon, brought the court together in a unanimous decision to order president nixon, in response to a criminal trial subpoena to disclose information. that s important. respect for precedent is another one. we re a system of constitutional precedent. precedent is not just a judicial policy. it is sometimes stated is just a policy. precedent comes from article 3 of the constitution. article 3 of the constitution refers to the judicial power. what does judicial power mean? judicial power you look at
have the system of precedent so that people can rely on the decisions. precedent also reinforces the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. people need to know in this country that the judges are independent and that we aren t making decisions based on policy views. part of that is to understand we re following a system of precedent, of what has been done before. the court every time someone gets on, it is not just bouncing around to what do i think is best. it is what s the precedent of the supreme court is always part of the analysis and an important part. and for 12 years i ve been applying precedent of the supreme court and of my court. every day for 12 years i haven t been getting up saying how can i rewrite the law. i ve been getting up for 12 years every day saying how can i apply this fourth amount
thing. i want to reiterate the supreme court made clear that machine guns can be banned. i m talking about the heller case. let me be specific. and you specifically argued that it was unconstitutional to defend assault weapons because they are to ban assault weapons because they are in common use. and that, i believe, was your dissent in the case. yes, and i was referring to some kinds of semi automatic rifles that are banned by d.c. are in widely owned in the united states. and that seemed to be the test that the supreme court had set forth in the heller and mcdonald cases. in other words, if a type of firearm is widely owned in the united states now, whether i agree with that test or not was not the issue before me. i have to follow the precedent of the supreme court as it s written. and that s what i tried to do