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
precedent. as a lower court judge, i was bound to apply it. it was in the brown and williamson decision. in the god father of the major rules or major questions doctrine is justice brier that wrote about it in the 1980s as a way to apply chevron. the supreme court adopted that in the brown and williamson case, applied it in the uarg case, the one 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 already such a delegation. that had not happened in my view with respect to net neutrality. i felt bound by precedent and therefore to apply the may the minor rules would be okay but not major. in a decision you say you ll know the difference when you see it. that s why the other judges on
precedent. therefore, as a lower court judge i was bound to apply it. it was applied to the majority opinion in the brown and williamson decision. the godfather of the major rules or major questions doctrine is justice breyer, who wrote about it in the 1980s as a way to apply chevron. the supreme court adopted that in the brown and williamson case, applied it in the uarg case, the one 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. and that had not happened in my view with respect to net neutrality and i felt bound by precedent, therefore, to apply the major precedent. so minor rules would be okay but not major.