the court from appointed by both parties went with the traditional view of how to look at this. you used the 1986 law review article by justin brier and from the king v. burrwell case in 2015. what i m showing to show is this pattern to say, oh, congress should step in and do everything. you re stepping in in these cases. i would say it s a pattern of adhering to precedent. it seems to precedent when you look at chevron and i know the white house touted the fact that you overruled the federal agency action 75 times. and they said that you lead the effort to reign in executive agencies in the press release when you were announced. what does that mean, how you let the effort? i don t know. i don t know what that is referring to. i know my record. i m sure i upheld agency decisions dozens and dozens and
actually cited your opinion in arguing to have these charges thrown out. does that concern you at all? our case dealt with contribution limits. that s what i was opining on in that case. i m not sure there are the state of the law and the expenditure limits was not before us in that case. so i don t want to opine on expenditure limits that opinion was cited by i don t know if it was cited i don t want to talk about a pending case. my case, i upheld limits on contributions in the rnc case and in the bloomin case and the supreme court has upheld contribution limits generally but strike them down when they re too low in cases like randall and mccutchen. in light of the recent indictments, do you stand by
candidates, nominees from president republican presidents 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 they re 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, it s nonsense. we re you re an appellate judge and an issue comes before you, the issue is not the parties. you re to resolve the legal issues. it s a purely legal matter. the parties may happen to be the case that they pick to do that. now, obviously it s as well as a human being to say you care about the parties, yes, you should, but that s 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 it s a theoretical matter
regulate and has done so. with respect to contribution limits, however there are cases where the contribution limits are too slow. so subsequent to the e-mail you re talking about, the supreme court has struck down the limits. one is randall none were these cases. justice brier right? yes. okay. i don t think there s buckley versus valeo. there s a lot of cases. mcconnell, wisconsin right to life, citizens united which flushes out my issue is that we ve had past nominees that would when i heard your discussion with senator white house, you talked about how congress should step in again. we did. we tried and it was struck down with citizens united. and so that is a problem. we re left with nothing now but
the rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense. right? yes. so it just doesn t make common sense to me that we would throw an agency out like that or but i did you re basically putting your judgment in the place of congress. but i didn t throw the agency out. i said the agency can continue operating as it was. the only change would be instead of being for cause remove value, would be at-will removal. there was a judge, not me, on the court that said because of that constitutional flaw, the whole agency had to stop operating. i specifically rejected that as a remedy and said no, the agency can continue to operate doing its important consumer functions. let s go to one where you did throw out the rules. that s net neutrality. right? that is in my mind the bedrock of a free and open internet and