Page 4 - Ag Raprocesses News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

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 it's 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 stand by what i wrote then and i think i correctly analyzed part 2b. now, senator -- >> i'm going ...

Chief justice rehnquist, i think in this case, the government evidenced hostility. that's just one person's opinion. and again, i'm not asking you for any opinion with regard to anything that may come before the case. >> [ inaudible ]. >> mr. chairman, i hope that time won't be subtracted from my 30 minutes. >> it will not be. >> thank you. so judge kavanaugh, i'm intrigued by a comment that you made earlier about the role of precedent. we've heard a lot about precedent. you alluded to this book that you and others -- other judges wrote with brian garner.

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 didn't you stick to the plain language of the controlling statute and the binding supreme court precedent? >> because the supreme cour...

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, what's 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. what's the closest body of long point? the parental consent decisions of the supreme court where they've repeatedly upheld parental consent laws over the objection of dissenters who thought that's going to ...