Politalk.ca

“Yes, as it was phrased to me, we generally respect circuit precedent, but not necessarily in every case,” Sauer offered, then went on to suggest that pending litigation would somehow neutralize any requirement to follow judicial orders. “Some examples might be a situation where we are litigating to get that circuit precedent overruled and so on.”

Barrett tried again, clarifying to Sauer that she was not talking about a situation in which the government is embroiled in litigation to overturn a decades-old outdated precedent.

“I’m talking about in this kind of situation,” Barrett hypothesized. “I’m talking about this week, the 2nd Circuit holds that an executive order is unconstitutional, and then what do you do the next day or the next week?”

“Generally, we follow it,” replied Sauer, emphasizing the word “generally.”

“So you’re still saying generally?” argued Barrett.

“Yes,” said Sauer.

“And you still think that it’s generally the long-standing policy of the federal government to take that approach?” asked a clearly unconvinced Barrett.

Sauer would not budge, answering again, “generally.”

The people she is trying to influence are sitting with her behind the bench. Unlike most of us, she is not trying to score likes on social media. I think that her point was crystal clear and that the conservatives on the bench got it.

I agree that it would make me much more satisfied personally if she had been more blunt, but in the end I care more about the decision in the case.