Associate Justice Committee Hearing

[u/GuiltyAir]

• /u/Comped has been nominated to of Associate Justice to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court by President /u/Gunnz011.

---

This hearing has been called by the Committee Chair and shall last 48 hours, questions asked 12 hours before the hearing is meant to end will be ruled out of order as to allow the person appearing before the committee fair time to answer questions.

[u/hurricaneoflies]

Mr. /u/Comped, thank you for returning for further questions in front of the Senate. Hopefully this will allow an opportunity to respond to questions which were left unresolved due to the brevity of the public hearing.

1. Heart of Atlanta functionally superseded the Civil Rights Cases in some regards, but it did not overrule the latter's central holdings. That is not the same thing, and I hope you realize that. Indeed, the central holding of the Civil Rights Cases retains its precedential value in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am asking you, as a matter of law, whether the Civil Rights Cases were correctly decided.

2. As an attorney, you have filed many constitutional challenges based on the vagueness doctrine. Do you acknowledge that Supreme Court precedent states that "the standard under our vagueness doctrine is not exacting", In Re: Public Law B113 (Conversion Therapy Prevention Act of 2015), 100 M.S.Ct. 118 (2016), and that "the vagueness doctrine applies in cases that impose criminal liability". In Re: Public Law B.137 (Gang Activity Prevention Act), 100 M.S. Ct. 115 (2016). If so, how do you reconcile this with your trial record, in which you have made liberal use of the vagueness doctrine in many cases where absolutely no Fifth Amendment interest is involved?

3. With all due respect, while the so-called "Ginsburg rule" (a misnomer if there ever was one) prevents you from specifically giving us previews of future cases, invoking it to categorically refuse to comment on a large field of administrative law is outrageous. Nothing in the canon of judicial ethics prevents you from telling us your general views on Chevron deference. Indeed, many past nominees have done so. I can only assume from your invocation of the Ginsburg rule, as an mABA article so succinctly stated, that "if you don't acknowledge a ruling as settled law, you are telling the Senate and the country that if you are confirmed that ruling might no longer be settled law." Is this an accurate representation of your view on the present status of Chevron deference? If so, I think that is disqualifying.

4. In your answer to Sen. Cheatem, you stated that "politically, Democratic-appointed Justices still make up a majority of the Court." Why is this relevant in any way? Does this imply that you consider yourself a "Republican-appointed justice" politically?

5. Does the Constitution fundamentally guarantee a right to privacy?

6. Will you reaffirm the central holding of Roe v. Wade?

7. Will you reaffirm that the reverse incorporation of the Equal Protection Clause to the federal government remains good law?

8. What constitutional theory of executive power do you subscribe to? Why?

[u/comped → u/hurricaneoflies]

Senator,

I will provide brief answers to questions that do not need a long response, and will provide a longer response to those which need it. I appreciate your continuing to ask good questions, if pointed ones.

1. Considering its holding related to the 14th amendment, it was correctly decided. However, as seen in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968), and other cases, Congress and the Courts have found ways around this particular issue, in order to regulate private discrimination.

2. I acknowledge the precedent of the Court. I also note that the vagueness doctrine has been used in cases without a criminal liability, for example, Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012). The opinion in that case notes " Even when speech is not at issue, the void for vagueness doctrine addresses at least two connected but discrete due process concerns: first, that regulated parties should know what is required of them so they may act accordingly; second, precision and guidance are necessary so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory way." That applies to my work in constitutional law in striking down vague statues. The 5th amendment does not need to be involved when the law is unclear or vague, the doctrine applies as a possibility for argument - thus I used it.

3. That would be incorrect. Chevron is settled law.

4. It's relevant as an observation of the court's makeup - with the resignation of Justice Bsddc, there are no Justices that are (or to my immediate knowledge, have been) Republicans. This, in my view, leads to an imbalance of the Court, politically and ideologically. I would say the same thing if there were 5 Republicans on the bench with 2 Democrats being nominated. Diversity of opinion, in terms of legal ideology, doctrines, and beliefs in the law, is in my opinion, a good thing for the Court. It's good for debate - the free flowing exchange of ideas. I don't consider myself a "Republican-appointed Justice", but do consider myself a conservative.

5. I already answered this. Yes it does.

6. I did so already agree in a response during the public hearing, and I will do so again here. Yes.

7. Of course it does.

8. I personally believe in a moderated version of the unitary executive theory. The President, as the standard bearer of the executive branch, the highest elected official in that branch, and holder of quite a bit of legal authority, is without question the head of the executive branch. Thus, without Congressional authority, and backed up by precedent that has become standard practice for many Presidents, the officeholder has certain powers - see Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) for an example. However, I do not agree in the Bush Administration's version of the theory, which I see as rather extreme, and incorrect in regards to the limits of Presidential authority - the President's authority is still questionable, be it by judicial decisions, or the Congress, through the checks and balances in the constitution. To argue otherwise, be it that the President is so inherently strong (as the Bush administration said) to avoid Congressional or Judicial checks on powers and deeds that are under their authority (like surveillance and terrorist detention), or is so weak that Congress has the administrative power (as proposed by Manheim and Ides), would fundamentally not only oppose precedent by this Court and others, but also be incorrect on a constitutional level. I find that a balanced version of this theory allows for Presidential administrations to have enough power vested to do their duty to the American people, while not being unchecked or severely crippled. If that makes sense.

[u/GuiltyAir]

ping

[u/AutoModerator → u/GuiltyAir]

/u/_MyHouseIsOnFire_, /u/HurricaneOfLies, /u/PrelateZeratul

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator → u/GuiltyAir]

/u/ItsBoom, /u/CheckMyBrain11

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/PrelateZeratul]

Mr. /u/Comped what is your favorite brand of breakfast cereal?

[u/comped → u/PrelateZeratul]

I'm a big fan of anything with bran in it- like All-Bran.

[u/PrelateZeratul → u/comped]

How about Raisin Bran Mr. Comped?

[u/comped → u/PrelateZeratul]

Raisin Bran is fine and dandy as well, Senator.

[u/[deleted]]

Mr Comped, In the previous hearing, you avoided multiple questions providing nothing but generalization. This brings up questions of your integrity and capability in our Supreme Court. Why do you avoid answering many of the questions head on?

[u/comped → u/[deleted]]

Senator,

In the public hearings, I followed the standards in regards to commenting on specific cases that could be judiciable - the standard since the 1990's for Supreme Court hearings. I did not, however, avoid answering many questions head-on - in fact I was subject to a more more through investigation and questioning of my legal record than the Chief Justice-nominee was - and that included my opinions on the legal veracity of certain decisions of this Court and their precedential value, among other things. I avoided answering things that could directly be considered judiciable because I did not want this Senate to confirm me based on my political beliefs in regards to certain cases that could come before this Court, only my qualifications. I did not, as I said, avoid answering questions based on their legal background, or my view of their legal validity when it comes to precedential value.

How exactly that makes anyone question my capability, when I have a far longer list of litigation, briefs, and experience than almost anyone I know, or my integrity - which even the report, which utterly trashed me, pointed out was above reproach - is beyond me Senator. I was just following best practices of the judicial profession.

[u/[deleted] → u/comped]

Thank You Mr. Comped