i want to jump right in because i actually found some of your oesponses to senator hiron really compelling around the public charge issue and that you dissented in the case and if i can read

i want to jump right in because i actually found some of your oesponses to senator hiron really compelling around the public charge issue and that you dissented in the case and if i can read it you wrote at the bottom "the plaintiff's objectives reflect disagreement with the policy choice and even self,atutory exclusion litigation is not the vehicle for solving policy disputes because i think the dhs's definition is a rational definition of public charge." but you were saying to her which i found compelling that you were still believing -- leaving the door open for it to be capricious. was that the word used? judge barrett: yes. under the administrative procedure act paradise said at the conclusion of the dissent because the majority breached both, i said i was not dissolving that issue -- resolving that issue because it had not been briefed before us expressing an opinion. i did leave open the possibility that the rule be arbitrary and capricious. sen. booker: i am trying to read all of your cases - has been a herculean task. just gomaybe i can back to asking a simple question that i hope

i want to jump right in because i actually found some of your oesponses to senator hiron really compelling around the public charge issue and that you dissented in the case and if i can read it you wrote at the bottom "the plaintiff's objectives reflect disagreement with the policy choice and even self,atutory exclusion litigation is not the vehicle for solving policy disputes because i think the dhs's definition is a rational definition of public charge." but you were saying to her which i found compelling that you were still believing -- leaving the door open for it to be capricious. was that the word used? judge barrett: yes. under the administrative procedure act paradise said at the conclusion of the dissent because the majority breached both, i said i was not dissolving that issue -- resolving that issue because it had not been briefed before us expressing an opinion. i did leave open the possibility that the rule be arbitrary and capricious. sen. booker: i am trying to read all of your cases - has been a herculean task. just gomaybe i can back to asking a simple question that i hope

i want to jump right in because i actually found some of your oesponses to senator hiron really compelling around the public charge issue and that you dissented in the case and if i can read it you wrote at the bottom "the plaintiff's objectives reflect disagreement with the policy choice and even self,atutory exclusion litigation is not the vehicle for solving policy disputes because i think the dhs's definition is a rational definition of public charge." but you were saying to her which i found compelling that you were still believing -- leaving the door open for it to be capricious. was that the word used? judge barrett: yes. under the administrative procedure act paradise said at the conclusion of the dissent because the majority breached both, i said i was not dissolving that issue -- resolving that issue because it had not been briefed before us expressing an opinion. i did leave open the possibility that the rule be arbitrary and capricious. sen. booker: i am trying to read all of your cases - has been a herculean task. just gomaybe i can back to asking a simple question that i hope