ANOTHER HALLMARK OF YOUR WORK HAS BEEN TAKING CONFLICT ISSUES AND MAKING THEM ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, SO MUCH SO THAT I ACTUALLY REFERRED TO ONE OF YOUR OPINIONS FROM A DEBATE STAGE IN LOS ANGELES, SAYING, AS A WISE JUDGE SAID, THOSE WERE MY WORDS, GUESS I WAS AHEAD OF MY TIME, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT KING IN AMERICA, THE LAW IS KING. I PARAPHRASED IT. THAT IS A WRITTEN OPINION YOU WROTE THAT WAS OVER 65 PAGES LONG, RELIED EXTENSIVELY ON SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, AND CAN YOU TALK ABOUT TWO THINGS, THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THE LAW WRITTEN IN TERMS THAT ARE EASY TO UNDERSTAND BY PEOPLE, AND SECONDLY, YOUR OPINION WAS ACTUALLY A NARROW ONE. IT REQUIRED MS. MCGANN TO APPEAR TO TESTIFY BUT SAID HE REMADE FREE TO EXERT ANY LEGALLY APPLICABLE PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED. SO WHAT YOU DID WAS A NARROW OPINION. WHAT RULE DO YOU THINK NARROW RULINGS PLAYED IN HELPING TO MAINTAIN RELIGION THIS -- LEGITIMACY OF THE COURT? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE PLAIN LANGUAGE? JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU, SENATOR. I WILL START WITH THE SECOND FIRST. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, WE HAVE RULE OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY WHICH REQUIRES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PREDICTABILITY AND STABILITY IN THE LAW. IF THEY WERE BIG SHIFTS IN TERMS OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES AND WHATNOT, IT COULD LEAD TO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT JUDGES ARE RULING ON LEGAL PRINCIPLES. IT COULD LEAD TO UNDERMINING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE, THINKING THAT JUDGES ARE INJECTING THEIR OWN POLICY PREFERENCES, RATHER THAN FOLLOWING THE LAW IN TERMS OF THEIR RULINGS. SO TO FURTHER PREDICTABILITY, STABILITY, THERE ARE MANY DOCTRINES IN JUDICIAL PRACTICE, THERE IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT IF SOMETHING HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED VERY SIMILARLY, YOU -- IT MAY BE BINDING ON YOU IF IT IS A LOWER COURT, BUT AT LEAST YOU HAVE TO CONTEND WITH IT, BECAUSE THAT IS THE LAW SET FOR PEOPLE -- BEFORE YOU IN THE CASE, AND YOU DO NOT WANT TO MAKE A BIG SHIFT. THERE IS ALSO THE PRINCIPLE THAT , THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN YOU ARE ANNOUNCING RULINGS, YOU ARE BUILDING ON WHAT EXISTS BEFORE. SO YOU DO NOT WANT TO MAKE A BIG SHIFT IF YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BECAUSE IF YOU CAN FIND A WAY TO RULE INCREMENTALLY IN A MORE NARROW WAY, IT KEEPS THE LAW STABLE, AS A PART OF THE PROPOSITION THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE. IN MCGANN, IN PARTICULAR, IT WAS A CASE IN WHICH THERE WAS A PRECEDENT DIRECTLY ON POINT FROM MY DISTRICT, NOT BINDING ON ME, BUT THE EXACT SAME SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND ARGUMENTS HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO ANOTHER JUDGE IN MY DISTRICT, I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE 10 YEARS PRIOR TO MY CASE, AND SO IT HAD LAW THAT GOVERNED THE CIRCUMSTANCE, AND I LOOKED AT THAT AND DETERMINED IT WAS PERSUASIVE AND THAT I SHOULD CONTINUE THE PRINCIPLES THAT HAD BEEN LAID DOWN IN THE PRIOR CASE. ALSO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES, THE PRIOR JUDGE AND I MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT CLAIMED ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, THE ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE PERSON WHO HAD BEEN SUBPOENAED BY THE LEGISLATURE, A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE WHITE HOUSE, COULD SAY THAT THEY HAD IMMUNITY OF SOME SORT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT COULD INVOKE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IN RESPONSE TO PARTICULAR QUESTIONS, BUT THEY COULD NOT SAY I DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW UP AT ALL. SO THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS BEING MADE WAS WHEN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ISSUES A SUBPOENA AND SAYS IT WILL SHOW UP ON THIS DAY AT THIS TIME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, DOES THAT PERSON -- CAN THAT PERSON JUST IGNORE AND SAY I HAVE IMMUNITY AND DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW, IN OTHER WORDS, RESPOND TO THIS SUBPOENA, OR DO I HAVE TO SHOW UP AND SIT THERE AND LISTEN TO THE QUESTIONS, AND IF THERE ARE THINGS I BELIEVE I CANNOT ANSWER BECAUSE THEY ARE PRIVILEGE, YOU INVOKE PRIVILEGE? THE PRIOR CASE SAID IN THIS NARROW WAY, YOU HAVE TO SHOW UP. YOU DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO GIVE THE INFORMATION. THAT IS DETERMINED ON A QUESTION BY QUESTION BASIS, BUT YOU HAVE TO SHOW UP. AND THAT IS WHAT I HELD THROUGH THAT CASE, AS WELL, AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR IN YOUR RULINGS SO THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT JUDGES ARE RULING CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW AND NOT THEIR OWN PERSONAL VIEWS. ...