Page 19 - Heller Case News Today

Originalism where both justices sought to explain the reasoning by looking at the original public meaning of the second amendment. which decision did you agree with, and why? >> well, senator, i think weve alluded my difficulty here. i do think everything you just said is accurate. both justice scalia and justice stephens wrote excellent opinions in that case. i am not here, though, to grade my boss work. that would be kind of impertinent of me and i am sure they would think so. i also worry tha...

The facts law. those are some of the things judicial independence means to me. it means to me the judicial oath that i took to administer justice without respect to persons. to do equal right to the poor and rich and discharge dutifully the oath of my office. its a beautiful oath and statutory oath written by this body. thats what judicial independence means to me. happy to talk about the separation of powers too if youd like, mr. chairman or answer another question. up to you. >> youre record m...

A car. modern technology. how do you apply the original constitution written 200 years ago to that? and the court went back and looked at the law 200 years ago. and one of the things it found was that attaching something to someone elses property is a trespass. and would be considered a search. and the court held that if thats a trespass and a search 247bd years ago, it has to be today, though the technology is obviously different. so the technology changes but the principles dont. and it cant b...

Contested issue. we move forward. senator, the value of that is and the united states supreme court takes 70 or 80 case as a year. thats a tiny fraction of all the disputes in our federal legal system. and theyre unanimous in cases when have divided judge thats why the supreme court takes the case and its a rare case where we disagree. theyre unanimous 40% of the time. >> one other question. >> sure. >> do you view roe as having super precedent? >> senator, super precedent -- >> in numbers? >> i...

National origin, religion and other factors. vance v. ball which made it more difficult for workers to prove plain discrimination claims. as senator whitehouse pointed, each of these cases was 5-4 and justice scalia voted with the majority against the employee in every case. president trump and others have said you are the next scalia. so i think its only fair to ask you, do you disagree with any of the mairjority opinions that jue scalia joined in these cases? if so, which ones do you especiall...

Advising them on how to go about do that legally in conjunction with senator grahams effort and others and it was a bipartisan effort and we put together our best effort. the d.c. circuit upheld it and the supreme court of the united states eventually many years later felt the process was insufficient. to say there was no process would be inaccurate too because the detainee treatment act had a long list of prescribed processes and the question is whether they were adequate enough under the suspe...

For instance for brown versus board of education is the textbook example of this. so with these things in mind id like to explore the approach youd take to supreme court precedence. could you tell us what you believe is a value of precedent in our legal system? >> if i could go back to promises. i have offered no promises in how id rule in any case to anyone and dont think its appropriate to do so no matter whos doing the asking and everyone wants a fair judge to come to their case anyway open m...

Decided a few years before roe the case where the court found constitutional right to privacy. can you tell me your views on griswald? >> senator, its a precedent thats now 50 years old. it involved the right of married couples to use contraceptives in the privacy of their home. its 50 years old and been repeatedly reaffirmed. all important factors inning precedent. >> well, i think im going to stop questioning but ill sum up what you and i just talked about in regard to precedent. so everybody ...

Power amalgamated founders worried that would be the very definition of tyranny. you can see why. were life tenured. you cant get rid of us. it only takes a couple of us to make a decision or nine or twelve depending on the court. it would be a poor way to run a democracy and at the same time with respect legislators may not make great judge because theyre answerable to the people and when you come to the court about a case or controversy about past facts you want a neutral, rigidly neutral, fai...

The full weight and respect to due precedent. >> those two cases were five to four decision. let me ask you about something that was unanimous. the supreme court ruled 9-0 the obama administration couldnt tell a church what ministers could be. the only controversial thing about that case is the obama decision tried to convince the supreme court a bunch of government bureaucrats can tell a church who the ministers could be. that case was 9-0. can you tell me if that case was decided correctly? >>...