THANK YOU. I WANT TO NOTE, THE CHAIRMAN EARLIER REMARKED UPON THE DISRUPTIONS IN THE PUBLISHING AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS CAUSED IN RECENT YEARS. I WAS REFLECTING AS THE CHAIRMAN SPOKE THAT AT THE TIME OF THE INVENTION OF THE PRINTING PRESS, MANY OF THOSE WHO PREVIOUSLY HAD CENTRALIZED CONTROL OF THE PRODUCTION AND DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION RECOGNIZED IT WAS DISRUPTIVE, THREATENING AND THAT IT DISRUPTED POWER DYNAMICS AND EMPOWERED NEW PARTICIPANTS IN PUBLIC THIS COURSE TO PARTICIPATE AND I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS TO YOU -- THIS IS NOT A QUESTION -- BUT TO EXPRESS TO YOU MY VIEW THAT THIS IS VITAL THAT WE IN CONGRESS AND THE JUDICIARY RELENTLESSLY DEFEND THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE FREE EXPRESSION OF IDEAS, EVEN AS NEW TECHNOLOGIES EMERGE WHICH DISRUPT THESE MARKETS AND PRESENT CHALLENGING NEW PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE COURT. A VERY BRIEF QUESTION ON THE NOT LIGHTHEARTED BUT IMPORTANT SUBJECT OF WAR POWERS, I REVIEWED SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT PRIOR NOMINEES HAVE MADE WHEN ASKED ABOUT QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLOCATION OF WAR POWERS BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES. SOMETHING I HAVE SEEN IN SOME OF THOSE TRANSCRIPTS HAS BEEN A TENDENCY TO SAY THESE ARE DISPUTES BETWEEN POLITICAL BRANCHES AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE RESOLVED BETWEEN THE POLITICAL BRANCHES. I NOTED IN THE MCCANN OPINION THAT YOU ISSUED, YOU NOTED IN THAT CASE THAT ONE OF THE REASONS IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE JUDICIARY TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM MADE BY THE U.S. HOUSE IN THAT CASE WAS THAT WHERE THERE IS DISPUTE BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE, IN THAT CASE AND IN MANY CASES, THE JUDICIARY IS PRECISELY THE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THE RESOLUTION OF THAT DISPUTE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COURT AND EU, SHOULD YOU BE CONFIRMED, MAY VERY WELL HAVE TO ENTERTAIN CASES AND CONTROVERSIES PERTAINING TO DISPUTES BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE IDS -- LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BECAUSE THERE IS, IN MY OPINION, AMBIGUITY IN HOW THE CONSTITUTION ALLOCATE -- ALLOCATES FORCES BETWEEN THE TWO BRANCHES. NOT ASKING YOU TO POSIT A THESIS, BUT I WANT TO ASK HOW YOU WILL APPROACH SUCH CASES? I ASSUME APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY YOU HAVE LAID OUT FOR US CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THESE HEARINGS WHERE WAR POWERS MAY COME BEFORE THE COURT. JUDGE JACKSON: IN EVERY CASE, I APPLY THE METHODOLOGY THAT I HAVE LAID OUT IN ORDER TO ENSURE I AM RULING IMPARTIALLY AND CONSISTENT WITH MY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. IN THE PART OF MY METHODOLOGY THAT ADDRESSES MY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, ONE OF THE THINGS I DO, AS JUDGES DO, IS DECIDE WHETHER I HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A PARTICULAR ISSUE. THE MCGANN CASE WAS NOT A WAR POWERS CASE. THE MCGANN CASE, I DETERMINED IN THAT OPINION, AND JUDGE BATES HAD DETERMINED IN A PRIOR OPINION, WEIGHT THE QUESTION OF LAW. THE QUESTION ESSENTIALLY WAS WHETHER THE SUBPOENA THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE HOUSE HAD TO BE RESPONDED TO BY THE PERSON WHO RECEIVED IT OR WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY AND DID NOT HAVE TO RESPOND. THAT IS A QUESTION OF LAW THAT COURTS ANSWER ALL THE TIME IN RESPECT TO THE ENFORCEABILITY OF SUBPOENAS. IN THE WAR POWERS REALM, THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS OF LAW THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR COURTS TO DECIDE. BUT, THERE MAY ALSO BE POLITICAL QUESTIONS. IT WOULD DEPEND. A POLITICAL QUESTION, IF THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVER SOME EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY THAT WAS NOT GOVERNED BY LAW BUT WAS IN THE DISCRETION OF EITHER OF THOSE BRANCHES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WHERE THEY GOT TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS. SAY FOR EXAMPLE, THE EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY IN WAR TO MOVE TROOPS OR DO THAT KIND OF THING, THAT WOULD NOT PRESENT A QUESTION OF LAW. IT WOULD DEPEND ON EXACTLY WHAT THE COURT WAS BEING ASKED TO DO AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT HAD JURISDICTION. UNDER MY METHODOLOGY, THAT WOULD BE THE KIND OF THING I WOULD HAVE TO CAREFULLY EXAMINED TO DETERMINE WHETHER I COULD RULE. ...