Page 2 - Ag Raprocesses News Today

Said what do you think about miranda? >> everyone else does it so your answer is no? >> its a combination of my respect for precedent, nominee precedent and my respect for judicial independence. so i cant give assurances on a specific hypothetical. >> let me go on to another subject which is executive privilege. executive privilege is a principle that is founded in the constitution and the separation of powers, correct? >> the supreme court so ruled in the united states versus richard nixon case...

Says, cases in controversies. and that means theres a process. litigants come in to the federal trial court. and, for example, litigate against one another. and theres a process there. a trial or summary judgment motion that the district judge renders a decision. then that comes up to the court of appeals. in my case. and theres briefing and oral argument. i like to say theres a process. i like to say process protects you. its one of my things i always like to keep in mind. you go through a proc...

Undocumented who would unionize to protect themselves in the workplace. you went out of your way to dissent all the way along and make sure they didnt, in your view, not have that right that they did not have that right to unionize. >> very respectfully disagree, senator. and the reason i disagree is the supreme court did say that the immigrant was covered under the definition of nlra. if it ends there im with you 147b 100%. then the supreme court goes on to say, the conflict between the nationa...

Where an overbroad ruling may resolve things that people who are affected by it may have thought, i wasnt part of that case. why am i now affected in a particular way. i think one of the things i can say about how ive tried to write my opinions, the 300 opinions, is im always concerned about -- im always concerned about unintended consequences. this is one of the reasons i go through so many drafts in my opinions and really work through them is really even just a sloppy footnote or an ambiguous ...

Immediately. judge kavanaugh, you bent over backwards to take the companys side against these workers. in a 2008 d.c. circuit case, agra processor versus nlrb, your dissent argued the companys workers should be prohibited from unionizing because they did not fit your definition of an employee. to reach this conclusion, you imported a definition of employee from a totally different statute. you ignored the plain language of the controlling statute, the national labor relations act, which has a br...

And went deep into this case. i went back and pulled from the shirtan case, i went and asked for the marshall papers. thurgood marshall papers from the library. i cited the oral argument to make sure that they -- that what i was reading there was reflected what had been going on in the supreme court. and its quite clear from the oral argument they were aware the immigration law was about to be changed, and they were aware of the interaction between the labor law and immigration law. so i think i...

Chief justice rehnquist, i think in this case, the government evidenced hostility. thats just one persons opinion. and again, im not asking you for any opinion with regard to anything that may come before the case. >> [ inaudible ]. >> mr. chairman, i hope that time wont be subtracted from my 30 minutes. >> it will not be. >> thank you. so judge kavanaugh, im intrigued by a comment that you made earlier about the role of precedent. weve heard a lot about precedent. you alluded to this book that ...

Said about your dissnent, would abandon the context of the controlling statute and would lead to an absurd result. the majority included one republican and one democratic appointed judge. judge kavanaugh, you claim over and over again to be a contextualist. to be care fli weighing every word of a statute. so why did you go out of your way to interpret the word employee in a way that benefited this horrible business and disadvantaged these exploited workers. why didnt you stick to the plain langu...

Who she would not be forced to talk to, but she could consult with if she wanted about the decision facing her. so we had to analyze this first as a minor and then, for me, the first question always, whats the precedent? the precedent on point from the supreme court is there is no case on exact point so you do what you do in all cases. you reason by analogy from the closest thing on point. whats the closest body of long point? the parental consent decisions of the supreme court where theyve repe...