0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
quote
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 3
petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. his novel theory would immunize presidents for treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. the framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do to wrong. they devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. here, the executive branch is enforcing congressional statute and seeking accountability for petitioners' alleged misuse of official power to convert democracy. that is a compelling public interest. in response, petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses, but established legal safeguards provide layers of protection with the article three court providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of linkage criminal immu
petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. his novel theory would immunize presidents for treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. the framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do to wrong. they devised a system to check...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
quote
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 4
in response, the petitioner raises concerns of potential abuses. established legal safeguards provide layers of protection, with the courts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it.
in response, the petitioner raises concerns of potential abuses. established legal safeguards provide layers of protection, with the courts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it.
0
0.0
Apr 17, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
those cows do not require that petitioner acted and obviously the petitioner committed other crimes that we are seeking to hold them accountable for. one of the root problems with petitioner's conduct is he knew about that proceeding. he said he was prepared to storm the capital, prepared to use violence. he wanted to intimidate congress. he said they can't don't if they can't breathe. he went to the capital on january 6 with that intent in mind and took action including assaulting a law enforcement officer. that did impede the ability of the officers to regain control of the capital. it is entirely appropriate for the government. quest the statutory maximum is higher but after a recent decision on the d.c. circuit judge which helped with a particular sentencing enhancement, that is the broad case i believe the sentencing range, the guidelines range would actually be higher guidelines range. someone who does not have a prior criminal history. this is the range that would yield. we have looked at the average sentences here. i think that is the best way to gauge it. this is when the senten
those cows do not require that petitioner acted and obviously the petitioner committed other crimes that we are seeking to hold them accountable for. one of the root problems with petitioner's conduct is he knew about that proceeding. he said he was prepared to storm the capital, prepared to use violence. he wanted to intimidate congress. he said they can't don't if they can't breathe. he went to the capital on january 6 with that intent in mind and took action including assaulting a law...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
between petitioner and a state official, petitioner is alleged to have sal i need you to find me 11,000 votes. ange. i think if you look at that content, it's pretty clear that petitioner is acting in the capacity as office seeot as president, and we would look at that content. >> ok. but the tests, but i am just focused on the legal tests. i'm not hearing any exceptions to it. >> other than the d.c. circuit judge a's to more content consideration off-limits than i would. >> ok. and i want to understand on the core immunithatever word we use, it seems to me we are narrowing the ground of dispute here considerably. do we look at motives, the president's motives for his actions? i mean, for example, he has lots but he might use them in order to enhance his perna interests. his election. is that a relevant consideration when we are looking at core powers? >> so, i am thinking of this more as looking at the objective of the activities as oppos t the kind of subjective motive in the sense that your hor suggests. i think there is l of concern about saying electoral -- and electoral modem to b
between petitioner and a state official, petitioner is alleged to have sal i need you to find me 11,000 votes. ange. i think if you look at that content, it's pretty clear that petitioner is acting in the capacity as office seeot as president, and we would look at that content. >> ok. but the tests, but i am just focused on the legal tests. i'm not hearing any exceptions to it. >> other than the d.c. circuit judge a's to more content consideration off-limits than i would. >>...
0
0.0
Apr 3, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
it is undisputed the petitioners realize nothing from their stock investment. they were taxed not because they had income but because in 2017 they happened to own shares in a corporation. this is a tax on the ownership of property. dispensing with the need for realization, the framers regarded this as the essential check on the power of congress to tax property. the government cannot identify a single thing congress could not tax its income under its position realization is unnecessary. without realization there is no limiting principle. accepting the government position on income would make a cap -- hash of the current law. gateway definition of gross income asserts congresses taxing power under the 16th amendment through reaching all income from whatever source derived. if the government possession -- position in this case is right the current law already requires taxpayers to pay on the valuation of bother assets, corporate earnings, any stocks they own, and any paper gains from contracts and loans. going back to 1913 that is how it has worked. the reason th
it is undisputed the petitioners realize nothing from their stock investment. they were taxed not because they had income but because in 2017 they happened to own shares in a corporation. this is a tax on the ownership of property. dispensing with the need for realization, the framers regarded this as the essential check on the power of congress to tax property. the government cannot identify a single thing congress could not tax its income under its position realization is unnecessary. without...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
in response, petitioner raises concerns aboential abuses. establhelegal safeguards provide layers of protections with thele three crts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a refully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understandg of every psident from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it. i welcome the court's ons. >> does the president have immunity or are you saying that there is no presidential munity even for official act >> yes, justice thomas, but it is important to puin perspective the position that we are offeri court today. the pre as the head of the arclto bnc can assert as applied article two objections to criminal laws that interfere with an excluse wer possessed by the president or that prevent the preside fm accomplishing h cstitutional he assigned functions. at is the constitutional doctrine that currently governs the separation of powers. what petitioner is asking for is a
in response, petitioner raises concerns aboential abuses. establhelegal safeguards provide layers of protections with thele three crts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a refully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understandg of every psident from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it. i welcome the court's ons. >> does the president...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
quote
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 4
. >> a verification signed by a petitioner that contained false statements. >> private. >> three private actors and a consultant helped implement a plan to submit private slates of presidential electors. >> i believe that is private. >> so those acts he would not dispute. those are private and you would not raise a claim they are official. >> what would -- what we would say is official is meeting with the department of justice to deliberate about who will be
. >> a verification signed by a petitioner that contained false statements. >> private. >> three private actors and a consultant helped implement a plan to submit private slates of presidential electors. >> i believe that is private. >> so those acts he would not dispute. those are private and you would not raise a claim they are official. >> what would -- what we would say is official is meeting with the department of justice to deliberate about who will be
0
0.0
Apr 2, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
petitioners acknowledge congress can expressly delegate to agencies the authority to define terms and fill gaps. and imagine if the statute said they were asked to define the administrator. i take both petitioners to give that up and recognize that is a delegation and courts should respect that. the role of the court in that circumstance is to make sure the agency has followed the procedures and stated within whatever outer bounds congress has set. and all of that complies with the constitution, of course, because congress has the authority to delegate the gap authority to agencies and the executive has core article ii authority to fill in those gaps. that's the core exercise of the executive power. then the article three courts are just fulfilling their judicial role when they will give affects to what congress has done and their choice to rely on the agency in that regards. but i think what all of this shows is the constitutional attacks on chevron and the suggestion that it is egregiously wrong, lacks merit. because there's no constitutional distinction between that kind of express
petitioners acknowledge congress can expressly delegate to agencies the authority to define terms and fill gaps. and imagine if the statute said they were asked to define the administrator. i take both petitioners to give that up and recognize that is a delegation and courts should respect that. the role of the court in that circumstance is to make sure the agency has followed the procedures and stated within whatever outer bounds congress has set. and all of that complies with the...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 4
in response, the petitioner raises concerns of potential abuses. established legal safeguards provide layers of protection, with the courts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it. host: we are taking your calls on the question of former president trump's presidential immunity. beverly is first in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. president trump needs immunity and the right to have no one take his in -- his election interference away from him. he did a good job in the four years. we are all in fear of a war with president biden in place. the reason president trump did question the election for president biden is because when we went to bed the night before we were supposed to get the totals. president biden was not in the lead in georgia. it was president trump. then
in response, the petitioner raises concerns of potential abuses. established legal safeguards provide layers of protection, with the courts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of blanket criminal immunity. that has been the understanding of every president from the framing through watergate and up to today. this court should preserve it. host: we are taking your calls on the...
0
0.0
Apr 2, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
oral argument of roman martinez on behalf of the petitioners martinez: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: for too long, chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined statutory interpretation. it should be overruled for three reasons. first, chevron violates the constitution. article iii empowers judges to say what the law is. it requires them to interpret federal statutes using their best and independent judgment. chevron undermines that duty. it reallocates interpretive authority from courts to agencies, and it forces courts to adopt inferior agency constructions that are issued for political or policy reasons. in doing so, chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of congress. it mandates judicial bias and encourages agency overreach. and by removing key checks on executive power, it threatens individual liberty. chevron also violates the apa. the most straightforward reading of section 706 requires de novo review of legal questions. congress put constitutional and statutory interpretation on equal footing, and it requi
oral argument of roman martinez on behalf of the petitioners martinez: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: for too long, chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined statutory interpretation. it should be overruled for three reasons. first, chevron violates the constitution. article iii empowers judges to say what the law is. it requires them to interpret federal statutes using their best and independent judgment. chevron undermines that duty. it reallocates...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
none of petitioners' interpretations fit with the text, and sohehave tried to make this case be about the broader debate for access to abortion in cases of unwanted pregnancy. but that'not what this case is about at all. idaho's ban on abortion is enforceae virtually all of itapications, but in the narrow circumstances involving grave medical emergencies, idaho cannot criminalize the essential care that emtala requires. i welcome the court's questions. justice thomas: general, are you aware of any other spending clause legislation that preempts criminal law? genel elogar: with respect torinal law in particular, justice thomas, i'm not immediately thinking of relevant cases. we have a whole string cite of cases in our brief at page 46 that refle tes where the court has recognized the prmpve force of spending clause legislation, including in situations where the funding strictions apply to private parties, so that could include the coventry health case, for example. lead-deadwood is another example of this. but i'm not immediately recalling how that would apply in criminal law. of cours
none of petitioners' interpretations fit with the text, and sohehave tried to make this case be about the broader debate for access to abortion in cases of unwanted pregnancy. but that'not what this case is about at all. idaho's ban on abortion is enforceae virtually all of itapications, but in the narrow circumstances involving grave medical emergencies, idaho cannot criminalize the essential care that emtala requires. i welcome the court's questions. justice thomas: general, are you aware of...
0
0.0
Apr 29, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
future and current development petitioners and leaders. what your thinking was and whether you think something is to be relevant past 2025. ambassador green: last part first. i hope so. those of you who know me well know i tell endless stories about it, but my years as a teacher in kenya was life altering. i was in a village where we didn't have proper running water. i didn't have a telephone. i didn't have electricity in our house. anything like that. but it also brought home to me the universality of the human spirit and how much people want the same things all around the world. it's personal to me. this is the way i look at the world. and that's what i was able to bring. i think back the first speech that gave at usaid, it was titled the 14th street speech. as i walked in the purpose of all foreign assistance has to be ending its need to exist. first people are rattled, then they pause for 30 seconds. then that's why they are here. that's what we believe in. i still do. i think that -- i want to take on poverty, but i want to help other
future and current development petitioners and leaders. what your thinking was and whether you think something is to be relevant past 2025. ambassador green: last part first. i hope so. those of you who know me well know i tell endless stories about it, but my years as a teacher in kenya was life altering. i was in a village where we didn't have proper running water. i didn't have a telephone. i didn't have electricity in our house. anything like that. but it also brought home to me the...
0
0.0
Apr 26, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official act and less he was first impeached and convicted, the theory would immunize former president's from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election to perpetuate himself in power. such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. the framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. they therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. here, the executive branch is sourcing congressional statutes and seeking petitioner's alleged misuse of official power to subvert democracy. that is a compelling public interest. in response, petitioner raises concerns about attentional abuses but established legal safeguards, provide layers of protections with the article three courts providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president but not at the high constitutional
petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official act and less he was first impeached and convicted, the theory would immunize former president's from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election to perpetuate himself in power. such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. the framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no...
0
0.0
Apr 27, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. his novel theory would immunize presidents for treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. the framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do to wrong. they devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain. here, the executive branch is enforcing congressional statute and seeking accountability for petitioners' alleged misuse of official power to convert democracy. that is a compelling public interest. in response, petitioner raises concerns about potential abuses, but established legal safeguards provide layers of protection with the article three court providing the ultimate check. the existing system is a carefully balanced framework. it protects the president, but not at the high constitutional cost of linkage criminal immu
petitioner, however, claims that a former president has permanent criminal immunity for his official acts unless he was first impeached and convicted. his novel theory would immunize presidents for treason, sedition, murder, and here conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. such presidential immunity has no foundation in the constitution. the framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do to wrong. they devised a system to check...
0
0.0
Apr 6, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
in a number of the amicus briefs about instances in which the government and the private party say petitioners here and the government coordinating efforts. how would you respond to that? >> i think the position where -- we are offering here and that the position the court will consider next month and the mercy case are entirely consistent. we acknowledge that if the government actually coerces the platforms and takes over there editorial decision-making, the platform could be deemed a state actor and would be subject to first amendment scrutiny. we vigorously disputes that is actually happening in the federal government has engaged in a kind of coercive conduct and we dispute the legal standards that were applied in that case. there is no inherent tension here. the federal government can act and criticize the social media platform content moderation decisions using the bully pulpit to express views and at the state disagreed with how they were exercising their content moderation, they could have done the same by criticizing them are urging them or influence them to adopt a separate standard.
in a number of the amicus briefs about instances in which the government and the private party say petitioners here and the government coordinating efforts. how would you respond to that? >> i think the position where -- we are offering here and that the position the court will consider next month and the mercy case are entirely consistent. we acknowledge that if the government actually coerces the platforms and takes over there editorial decision-making, the platform could be deemed a...
0
0.0
Apr 22, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
determinaon and its issuance of much broader injunctive relief has led to the problems at issue that the petitioner and dutch had raised. not the core principle of robinson. and therefore we urge tht to adhere to the core principle of robinson, but to emp that cities have flexibility t implement these and in particular te, place and manner restrictions on where someone can sleep are entirely valid if they are reasonable and indeed the state law justice jackson refe to establhe a state policy for time, matter and place restrictions are the way to go if they are reasonable. i welcome the courts que. argument if robinson involved someone being arrested for using drugs, bn the court said you were in effect arresting him for etatus of a drug user. because he had no choice because he is an addict. >> our position is not tha conduct as of robinson, the drug addict cant stop from using drugs, that's question of personal culpability on the basis. >> what's the difference betw that and camping out? what you'reayg here seems as though there is no other choice so you have to cam there or you're really arrestin
determinaon and its issuance of much broader injunctive relief has led to the problems at issue that the petitioner and dutch had raised. not the core principle of robinson. and therefore we urge tht to adhere to the core principle of robinson, but to emp that cities have flexibility t implement these and in particular te, place and manner restrictions on where someone can sleep are entirely valid if they are reasonable and indeed the state law justice jackson refe to establhe a state policy...
0
0.0
Apr 25, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
justice jackson: general, let me ask you to respond to a couple of things petitioners' counsel said and just give you the opportunity to respond. he suggested or said that you haven't identified a circumstance in which something that emtala requires idaho wouldn't allow. and i -- i didn't get a chance tosk him, but i took -- i took him to sort of mean that the way that idaho's statute operates, it basically allowfoa doctor to say, well, in my view, you know, th hlth-threatening circumstance could eventually lead to death, and so i'gog to do it. , to the extent that doctors are still able to do that, guess, he's saying there's no preemption. but is it true that there really isn't in operation a difference between the tw--he emtala and what ihoas required here? general prelogar: no. that is gravely mistaken on threlels. it's inconsistent with the actual text of the idaho law. it's inconsistent with medical reality. and it's inconsistent with what's happinon the ground. and this is a really important point, so let me try to unpack this. on theexitself, idaho's law only allows termination i
justice jackson: general, let me ask you to respond to a couple of things petitioners' counsel said and just give you the opportunity to respond. he suggested or said that you haven't identified a circumstance in which something that emtala requires idaho wouldn't allow. and i -- i didn't get a chance tosk him, but i took -- i took him to sort of mean that the way that idaho's statute operates, it basically allowfoa doctor to say, well, in my view, you know, th hlth-threatening circumstance...
0
0.0
Apr 23, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
determination and its issuance of mu bader injunctive relief has led to the problems at issuth the petitioner and its amici have raised, not the core princle of robinson. and, therefore, we urge the court to adhere t core principle of robinson but to emphasize that cities have exility to implement these and, in particular, time, place, and nn restrictions on where someone can sleep are entirely valid if they are reasonable, and, indeed, the state law that juice jackson referred to establishes a state policy that ti, nner, and place restrictions are the way to go if they are reonle. i welcome the court's questions. justice thomas: mr. kneedler, wouldn't you have a bte argument if robinson involved someone being arrested for usi drugs, but then the court said that y we in effect arresting him for the status of a drug user because he was -- he had nohoe but to use drugs because he's an addict? mr kneedler: no. our -- our position is not tha the conduct as in robinson, the drug addict can't oprom using drugs. that is not our position. that's a question of personal culpability onheasis of what the
determination and its issuance of mu bader injunctive relief has led to the problems at issuth the petitioner and its amici have raised, not the core princle of robinson. and, therefore, we urge the court to adhere t core principle of robinson but to emphasize that cities have exility to implement these and, in particular, time, place, and nn restrictions on where someone can sleep are entirely valid if they are reasonable, and, indeed, the state law that juice jackson referred to establishes a...