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
USA: Joe Biden macht im Eiltempo Entscheidungen Donald Trumps rückgängig
ksta.de - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from ksta.de Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
189,000. thank you. i stand corrected. all right. so again, i asked if there s anything in nothose documents y think would be relevant to our discussion here. senator, those documents are president bush s documents, and for the committee and the bush library and the executive branch to negotiate about. as i ve discussed, i have 12 years of judicial record, and this is not a new issue. this is an issue that came up in justice scalia s hearing and chief justice robert s experience with the s.g. documents. that s solicitor general. i m talking about though in the white house. they re both executive branch documents. there s one executive branch. i think one is involving the ongoing solicitor general, but i have just one more question on this line. you ve just said that rush decisions aren t always the best in answer to the discussion with
so i m not talking about the 189,000. i stand corrected. all right. so again, i asked if there s anything in those documents that you think would be relevant to our discussion here. senator, those documents are president bush s documents and for the committee and the bush library and the executive branch to negotiate about. as discussed, i have 12 years of judicial record and this is not a new issue. this is an issue that came up in justice scalia s hearing and justice roberts with the sg documents with justice kagan those are solicitor general. i m talking about the ones in the white house time. i m not seeing a distinction. they re executive branch documents. there s one executive branch. one is involving the ongoing solicitor general. one more question here. you said rush decisions are not always the best in answer to the
there was an american citizen involved. you are right, also, of course, you have studied this as much as anyone, but the court did resolve the case very quickly, and the opinion, i have spent many an hour trying to decipher certain pracaragraphs for cases have had. it s not easy. the court, to its credit, give a little credit, did have an eight-hour oral argument. i read the transcript of that to try to figure out what was going on in the opinion that did not unlock the box completely for me on what was going on in the kieran opinion. your point, justice scalia said it was not the court s finest hour. it was a rush. it was a rush. and rushes, sometimes the court has to rush, but rush decisions in a judicial context sometimes aren t always the best. on that point, would you be open to the idea of bringing back the era of the eight-hour
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.