america when they decide something is an unenameerated fundamental right. in the minute 48 seconds i have. this is a guilty plea and you were asked to assess a punishment and at one point in the proceedings, you said i m going to state for the record that this court has a long-standing policy disagreement with the criminal history guidelines respect to the application of the two-point am hansment. do you remember when you said hath? i don t remember that particular statement. how is that policy disagreement different from other disagreements where you said you re not going to get out of your lane, into the policy lane? yes. senator. supreme court, in the sentencing
people overturning laws enacted by legislators who are answerable to the electorate rather than a majority of the supreme court. finally he said for the purpose of my question he said the adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts, which i believe justice black and i am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and for the country. justice jackson, why is it substituted due process and analysis just another form of judicial policymaking, which you suggested policymaking is not in your lane and you strive to be apolitical, something i
basically rule america when they decide that something is an unenumerated fundamental right. let me in the 1:48 i have, ask you about a specific case. you remember a u.s. vs. brown? this was a guilty plea where you were asked to assess a punishment. and at one point in the proceedings you said, i m going to state for the record, however, that this court has a longstanding policy disagreement with the criminal history guidelines with respect to the application of the two-point enhancement. do you remember when you said that? i don t remember that particular statement. how is that policy disagreement different from other disagreements where you said that you ll not get out of your lane? you ll not get into the policy lane? yes, senator, supreme court in the sentencing realm has made
ordinary folks wonder who do these people think they are and where does this authority come from? i think the authority comes from we, the people. that s the source of legitimacy of the source of government and when the courts decide to identify an unenumerated right and anything that conflicts with it, can t you see how they might feel this is illegitimate or a sort of policymaking that you have disavowed some by saying that you don t want to make policy, you want to stay in your lane, i k you understand the concern? i understand it. because i believe the court s legitimacy is very important. that s why i agree with justice breyer that not withstanding what anybody else, that should be an aspirational goal of the judges.
basically rule america when they decide that something is an unenumerated fundamental right. in the one minute and 48 seconds that i have, let me ask you about a specific case. you remember u.s. versus brown? this was a guilty plea where you are asked to assess a punishment. at one point in the proceedings you said i m going to state for the record, however, that this court has a long-standing policy disagreement with the criminal history guidelines with the respect of the application of the two-point enhancement. do you remember when you said that? i don t remember that particular statement. how is that policy disagreement different from other disagreements where you said you re not going to get out of your lane, you re not going to get into the policy lane? yes, senator, the