Candidates, nominees from president republican president s have learned a lot about how to deal with the hearings. When you heard kavanaugh say as he did, talking about the parties to the case that theyre Flesh And Blood Human Beings and we need to have empathy for them and real world consequences of the court are very important. As a political matter, great stuff. A legal matter, its nonsense. Were youre an Appellate Judge and an issue comes before you, the issue is not the parties. Youre to resolve the legal issues. Its a purely legal matter. The parties may happen to be the case that they pick to do that. Now, obviously its as well as a human being to say you care about the parties, yes, you should, but thats smart to say that. Bork said when he was asked about why he wanted to be on the court back then, he said among other things, he said it was an intellectual feast. His critics got all over that. To him its a theoretical matter
kavanaugh. One is cory booker and kamala harris. No
to apply it. it was applied by the majority opinion in the brown and williamson decision. it s the godfather of the major rules or major questions doctrine. justice breyer wrote about it in the 1980s. the supreme court adopted that. the brown and williamson case applied it in the case you referenced, justice scalia s opinion. what that opinion says is it s okay for congress to delegate various matters to the executive agencies to do rules, but on major questions of major economic or social significance, we expect congress to speak clearly before such a delegation. that had not happened, in my view, with respect to net neutrality. i felt bound by precedent, therefore, to apply the major questions of rules doctrine. i know in the decision you say you ll know the difference with you see it. i think that s why the other
businesses to have an equal playing field. but in u.s. telcom association, in your own opinion, you went out of your way to dissent against the protections. this was the full d.c. court against you. the rules were uphold by a panel of judges appointed by presidents from both parties. and here you relied on something else that you came up with called the major rules doctrine. i know it s been mentioned in a 2015 case, but in claiming that the fcc lacked authority to issue net neutrality rules because they were, in your words, major. so again, it feels to me like congress set up the fcc and fcc is doing their job in a really complex policy matter. they put forward these rules on net neutrality. then you insert your judgment to say they re unconstitutional. so tell me why i m wrong. the major rules doctrine or major questions doctrine is rooted in supreme court precedent, and therefore as a lower court judge, i was bound
allowing small businesses an consumers to have an equal playing field. but in your own person, you went out of your way to dissent against the protections. this was the full d.c. court against you. the rules were upheld by a panel of judges appointed by presidents from both parties. here you relied on something else you came up with something called the major rules doctrine. it s been mentioned in a 2015 case. in claiming that the fcc lacked authority to issue net neutrality rules because they were major in your own words. it feels to me like congress set up the fcc and they have the fcc is doing their job in a complex policy matter. they put forward the rules on net neutrality and you insert your judgment to say that they re unconstitutional. tell me why i m wrong. the major rules doctrine is rooted in supreme court
internet, allowing consumers and small businesses to have an equal playing field. but in u.s. telecom association vfcc, in your own opinion you went out of the way to dissent. this is the full d.c. court against you. the rules were upheld by a panel of judges appointed by presidents from both parties. here you relied on something else that you came up with called the major rules doctrine. and i know it s been mentioned in a 2015 case, but in claiming that the fcc lacked authority to issue net neutrality rules because they were in your words major. so again it feels to me like congress set up the fcc and the fcc is doing their job in a really complex policy matter. they put forward these rules on net neutrality and then you insert your judgment to say that they re unconstitutional. so tell me why i m wrong. the major rules doctrine or major questions doctrine is rooted in supreme court