i would put the final nail in, let me go back to that question. would you vote to overturn morrison? senator, i m not going to say more than what i said before. i think what you said before is clear. i think your enthusiasm for overturning morrison is unmistakable. [protesters in the background]. i want to repeat two things, senator that are important. humphries is the precedent that stands on independent agencies generally. two is the special counsel system both in the phh decision recently and in the old georgetown law journal article, i specifically said that that is the traditional way that criminal investigations proceed
settled. you know if we overturned it, it would mean the elimination of independent agencies. why did you go there? why did you have that conversation if this long-settled case is well-reasoned? what i said in the phh case is that humphries executor is the precedent. i ve applied it dozens of times. what concerns me constitutionally as a judge in the phh case is that the cfpb did not follow the traditional model of independent agencies and therefore departed from this traditional exception one might say to the idea that a single president controls the executive branch. i explained that, that the having one head of an independent agency both diminished presidential authority more than humphries executor and pose add serious threat to individual liberty and was a departure from a
of independent agencies general. the humphries executor [protesting in the background]. i think she s referring there i read her as referring to independent agencies are traditional and permissible. the independent counsel statute is different from the independent agencies that existed with the federal trade commission securities and exchange commission. i did not real her old article to in any way let s put it this way. justice kagan may have complimented scalia s dissent. you criticized the independent counsel statute as a travesty. i m trying to get to the bottom of why you held that view and said it in a speech two years on. olson, was a one-off case about a one-off statute that has not existed in 20 years. the statue is gone. the case as justin kagan i
president. this was talked about in a bipartisan vote, advance ago bill that is predicated on the idea that congress can impose some restrictions on the executive power to fire at will executive branch officers. with some respect, senator, i think you re overreading what i wrote in that case. i did not in any way say that the traditional independent agencies are in way way constitutionally problematic. i took that as the baseline on which i said that this new agency departed from that traditional model. i did not i did not cast doubt on humphries in that case at least as i read it. i guess you don t agree with the opinion. i explained in great detail why i thought this deviation from humphries mattered as a
took my lead from her comment. i cited her comment many times in speeches i have given. that statute is real important to be clear here and you know this so everybody understands, that statute hasn t existed still good law, is it not? the holding by the supreme court in morrison v. olson even though the independent statute has passed into history, morrison v. olson is still good law? your own circuit said so this year? i think the humphries executor that s yes or no. the d.c. circuit held this year where you wrote a dis-september that morrison v. olson is still good law, correct? i think they were a playing humphreys or they said and i quote morrison is binding and valid how it applied humphries