even justice rehnquist, frankly, in the 1980 benzine case, articulated it. i think that's a really important doctrine right now for cabining broad delegations to agencies. in other words, if you're concerned about agencies taking vague delegations and doing massive agency rules, this major questions doctrine is critical. you see it even in king versus burwell, the chief justice referred to it after the uarg opinion. i'll be quicker. two things on this. how major is major? how major is major? money, people, affected, what -- i threw out some things in a dissent i wrote last year. i think it was last year. that should be considered. but that's an important debate. some rules are obviously major under any conception, including the one i was writing about at the time, in my view. so that's one issue that is difficult with the major rules doctrine. but that is a piece of the nondelegation story. the nondelegation doctrine does not, under current supreme court precedent, have much teeth. but the major question doctrine is an important cabining of broad delegations

>> it is a unanimous decision, 8-0, and justice rehnquist did not vote, ordering the president of thern over the tapes. >> the court voted unanimously, unanimously to require the tapes to be released. some of those members of the court had been appointed by richard nixon himself. so you had the court system acting in a nonpartisan way, in a credible way, regardless of politics. >> imagine that in the politicized supreme court that we've had in our recent history. >> while nixon tried to put on the pretend act that operations were going on as normal, they weren't. they were disintegrating every day. >> three days after the supreme court ruling house of representatives took the step most dreaded by the president. impeachment. nixon's fate now rested in the hands of the committee. >> today i am an inquisitor and hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that i feel right now. my faith in the constitution is whole. it is complete. it is total. and i am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the con

justice rehnquist wall for the court it was shocking how familiar culpability the jury instructions hadred. mr. weissmann obtained the conviction by erratic indicating criminal intent from the jury instructions and persuading the judge to give instructions that simply were devoid of that crucial element. >> sean: you write, gregg jarrett, that weissmann isis notorious lawyer. known for abusive tactics and for weaponizing the law in a ruthless and often unprincipled quest to convict. innocent people have been victimized by him. his biggest cases we have been talking about reversed. >> yeah. i mean, i think about all the people, tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs because of that man right there over absolutely nothing. and the merrill lynch employees were incarcerated. some of them in solitary confinement before thee fifth circuit released them. >> sean: for a year. >> yes. for nothing. this is man who has been accused of threatening witnesses and hiding exculpatory evidence. it is unconscionable. it is inapplicable unethical. >> sean: how does he have the ability to practice

and then the argument that prevailed before my later chief, and then he was justice rehnquist was totally arbitrary from the point of view of the baby. why should the baby have the opportunity for the care of a sole surviving parent if the parent is female but not if the parent is male? so the idea was, this discrimination against women, this putting women in a cordoned off place in a man's world, hurts everybody. it hurts men and it hurts children. >> and this work that you did was recognized by president carter. and, in fact, the university of chicago dean jeffrey stone said you were the single-most important woman lawyer in the history of the republic. and you paralleled thurgood marshall, who was the most significant lawyer as it related to african-americans and others of color. when you were appointed to the court, it was by president jimmy carter to the court of appeals, and you made the statement, you never thought becoming a judge was possible. that was because of everything that had gone before you. >> first, i'd like to make a correction. >> all right. [ laughter ] >> and it's a

i remember cheering as an assistant united states attorney when rehnquist wrote an opinion, 8-1, and he stood firm for some important law enforcement principle and i wondered, did we ever change this world we are on? whenember those days original is him was about as fashionable as disco. believe in theep belief in this constitutional order and the role of judge in the constitutional system. next to you we are no longer a voice in the wilderness. some 70,000are federalist society members across america. they are in the academy, in the courts, in the law offices, in congress, and once again in the white house. and in the department of justice, you can be sure of that. [applause] so there is no historic thing, there is no doubt the federalist society has made in the norma's, positive difference for our legal system. instance overone the last 35 years, to my recollection, that has come close to the influence of the federalist society on a single important subject facing america. it is unbelievable, really, how much progress has been made. your work has been the core of our relentless eff

was a spring court fellow in the office of the late chief justice of the united states, william rehnquist. matthew, welcome to the commission. last but certainly not least, i see her in the back. ashley is a new deputy counsel with response ability for admission of law issues however augustine interesting this position is, i can tell you she is the best job in the commission and i know because i once held it. ashley joined the committee below washington office and during her time there she focused on complex litigation, appeals and admission of law issues and represented corporate clients in association in full makings for federal agencies and she developed particular expertise with mitigations of financial regulatory sectors. prior to joining the firm as it started as a law clerk to a judge of the us court of appeals for the ninth circuit. she was not a spot in her academic pursuits either. she graduated from princeton with honors and got a law degree from a school in new haven, called i believe yell. in addition to her impressive legal resume she meets the primary qualification for the

he was a supreme court fellow and office of the late chief justice of the united states william rehnquist. matthew again welcome to the commission. last but not least ashley, i see her in the back, ashley is a new deputy general counsel with responsibility for administering law issues. however augustan interesting disposition is like italian fascism divest job at the commission at a know because i once held it. ashley joins commission from washington office of gibson dunn and crutcher. during her time there should focus on complex litigation, appeals and constitutional and administer law issues that she rips and corporate clients and association of rulemaking before federal agencies and she felt particular expertise in its communications and financial rails resected. prior to joining the firm she served as a law clerk to a judge on u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit and she was not a slouch and academic pursuits either. she gradually from princeton with honors and got a lot of great from a a school in new hn i believe it is called yale. in addition to impressive legal resume she

there weren't that many things that chief rehnquist and justice blackman agreed on, but this was one of them. this allows them to decide whether or not something is anti-semitic. the second major reason i don't think there's a first amendment problem here is we have a clarifying definition. providing a definition to government officials who one way or another are going to be looking at speech, providing a definition serves first amendment values. the first amendment generally abhors government officials looking at speech with unfettered discretion. but that's essentially the status quo. whatever congress does here, if congress does nothing, it's still going to be the education department's position that title six forbids harassment motivated by anti-semitism. so the question boils down to whether the education department officials are going to make that judgment without a definition or with a definition. and i certainly think it serves first amendment values to guide that discretion. i think the one area of the first amendment for a while that government officials had no guidance was