comparemela.com

Latest Breaking News On - Case rooted - Page 1 : comparemela.com

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - CNN - 20180905:19:30:00

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

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - CNN - 20180905:19:58:00

amendment? robert bork described it as an inkblot. do you share that assessment? so i think the ninth amendment and the privileges and immunities clause and the supreme court s doctrine of substantive due process are three roads that someone might take that all really lead to the same destination under the precedent of the supreme court now which is that the supreme court precedent protects certain unenumerated rights so long as the rights are as the supreme court said in the gluxburg case rooted in history and tradition and justice kagan explained this well in her confirmation hearing that it s quite important for allowing that protection of unenumerated rights rooted in history and tradition which the precedent definitely establishes. but at the same time making

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - CNN - 20180905:19:39:00

path, starting with the 2008 whole foods case where whole foods attempted to buy wild oats markets. very complicated, so i m going to go to the fwguts of it from opinion. the majority of courts and the what happened here is republican majority ftc challenges the deal, and then you dissent. you apply your own pricing test to the merger. my simple question is, where did you get this pricing test? well, i would have affirmed the decision by the district judge in that case, which allowed the merger and the district judge, judge friedman, appointee of president clinton s to the district court, and i was following his analysis of the merger. case is very fact specific, really turns on whether the larger supermarkets sell organic foods or not. but where did you get the pricing test is what i want to know. you used different tests.

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - CNN - 20180905:19:36:00

i personally view this as, you know, law making from the court, the citizens united case. so i m trying to figure out where you are on this. do you think contribution limits have constitutional problems, and what can congress actually do to rein in the flood of money? as a d.c. circuit judge, i ve upheld contribution limits in two important cases. one ruling against the rnc in rnc versus fec where it was challenging limits on contributions to political parties. i rejected that challenge. in another, bloomen versus fec, contributions by foreign citizens to u.s. election campaigns. i upheld that law. let s just talk about that case. your opinion left open the possibility of unlimited spending by foreign nationals in the united states on issue advocacy. the same kind of activity that we saw by the russians in 2016. in fact, a russian company facing charges brought by special counsel mueller actually

Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - CNN - 20180905:19:40:00

i m trying to figure that out, what legal authority actually requires a government to satisfy your standard to block a merger. i think what i remember in our discussion, you cited these nonbinding horizontal merger guidelines that you used to come up with this test. well, you re looking at the effect on competition and what the supreme court has told us, at least from the late 1970s s to look at the effect on consumers and what s the effect on the prices for consumers. the theory of the district court, judge friedman in this case, was that the merger would not cause an increase in prices because they were competing in a broader market that included larger supermarkets that also sold organic food. the question was really, is there an organic food market solely or is there a broader supermarket market. that s what the case i know. i was just trying to get to where that new test came from. so in the second case, you also

© 2024 Vimarsana

vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.