0
0.0
Apr 16, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
did petitioner obstruct, influence, or impede a joint session of congress? the answer is equally straightforward. yes. he obstructed that proceeding. the terms of the statute unambiguously encompasses conduct. petitioner does not really argue that his actions fall outside the plain meaning of what it is to obstruct. instead he asks the court to apply and a textual limit. in his view because it covers tampering with documents and other physical evidence. the second prohibition should be limited to acts of evidence impairment. that limit has no basis in the text or tools of construction. the reading hinges on the word otherwise but that means in a different manner not in the same manner. the prohibitions in section 1512 c2 are not unified items on the list we could apply associate words. they are separate provisions that have their own sets of verbs and nouns. they prohibit attempts which should be duplication that makes no sense on the reading. congress included a distinct mental state that it chose not to repeat. section 1512 c2 is not limited to evidence im
did petitioner obstruct, influence, or impede a joint session of congress? the answer is equally straightforward. yes. he obstructed that proceeding. the terms of the statute unambiguously encompasses conduct. petitioner does not really argue that his actions fall outside the plain meaning of what it is to obstruct. instead he asks the court to apply and a textual limit. in his view because it covers tampering with documents and other physical evidence. the second prohibition should be limited...
0
0.0
Apr 18, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
taking petitioner allegations istrue, that is what respondent says here. in the oys meeting she especially threatened to bring enforcement action against lloyd's unless lloyd's to cease providing insurance to gun groups, especially the a." the court should find a strahtforward first amendment violation under bantam books , but in recognizing the first amendment claims here, e court should take care to avoid suggesting any new limits on the government's ily to speak to the public or its ability to provide ordinary legal guidance to regute entities. i welcome the court's queson >> could the government, rather than coerce a third rty, simply entice them to reach the same suppression, do the exact same thing and ppss speech? but it depends what you mean by entice. if it doesn't rise to e level of significant encouragement. what's the difference by >> bloom requires that significant encouragement essentially overwhelmed the dgment of the independent intermediary. >> what would th ok like? in this case? >> in this case, i think you can kind of think the offer le
taking petitioner allegations istrue, that is what respondent says here. in the oys meeting she especially threatened to bring enforcement action against lloyd's unless lloyd's to cease providing insurance to gun groups, especially the a." the court should find a strahtforward first amendment violation under bantam books , but in recognizing the first amendment claims here, e court should take care to avoid suggesting any new limits on the government's ily to speak to the public or its...
0
0.0
Apr 19, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
taking the petitioner's allegations as true, that is what the respondent did here. in the lloyd's meeting she especially sought to bring an enforcement action against lloyd's unless lloyd's sees providing assistance to gun groups. the court should find a strict ford first amendment violation under bantam books, but in recognizing the first amendment claims here, the court should take care to avoid suggesting any new limits on the government's ability to speak in the public or its ability to provide ordinary equal guidance to regulated entities. i welcome the questions. justice thomas: could the government rather than coerce a third-party, simply entice them to reach the same suppression -- do the exact same thing and suppress speech? mr. mcdowell: it depends, justice thomas, on what you mean by entice. justice thomas: what is the difference? mr. mcdowell: bloom requires that encouragement overwhelm the judgment of intermediary, -- justice thomas: and what would that look like in this case. mr. mcdowell: in this case, i think you could think of the offer of leniency
taking the petitioner's allegations as true, that is what the respondent did here. in the lloyd's meeting she especially sought to bring an enforcement action against lloyd's unless lloyd's sees providing assistance to gun groups. the court should find a strict ford first amendment violation under bantam books, but in recognizing the first amendment claims here, the court should take care to avoid suggesting any new limits on the government's ability to speak in the public or its ability to...
0
0.0
Apr 11, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
>> petitioners are for the national vaccine injury compensation program. those are through the routine administration with an excise tax levied on it whereas the requesters through the ci cpr paid for compensation of claims through appropriated funds and through administration of the program. it is also paid for most appropriated funds. >> as a physician i am also worried that in some cases health practitioners do not know where and how to report adverse effects which is critical to ensuring that all vaccine events are accounted for. i also have concerns of how these events and potential risks are reported to healthcare providers. for each of you, could you take turns in describing what your respective agency insures against any adverse effects that are reported and how those reports are managed and how this information is conveyed to the front-line individuals that are dealing with this? dr. marks. >> thank you for the question. each vaccine label whether it was the authorized vaccines or approved vaccines, it has set information on where to report advers
>> petitioners are for the national vaccine injury compensation program. those are through the routine administration with an excise tax levied on it whereas the requesters through the ci cpr paid for compensation of claims through appropriated funds and through administration of the program. it is also paid for most appropriated funds. >> as a physician i am also worried that in some cases health practitioners do not know where and how to report adverse effects which is critical to...
0
0.0
Apr 11, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
commander grimes, how is the cicp structured to ensure accessibility and fairness to petitioner's and how does this compare to vicp or even the traditional litigation system? >> thank you for that question. in the cicp we administer the program by statute . an individual we call a requester files a request for benefits and then must submit medical records to the cicp to show that there is compelling evidence to support it was directly caused by the user administration of a covered countermeasure. a covered countermeasure could be a covid-19 vaccine. it could be a smallpox vaccine. >> we will stay focused on covid-19. that's what our obligation is in this subcommittee. do you feel it is more appropriate to have commissioners for covid-19 fees to be paid by the manufacturer or the taxpayer? >> petitioner's are for the injury compensation program and those are through the routine administration with an excise tax levied on it were as the requesters for the cicp are paid for compensation of claims through appropriated funds and administration of the program is also paid for those appropri
commander grimes, how is the cicp structured to ensure accessibility and fairness to petitioner's and how does this compare to vicp or even the traditional litigation system? >> thank you for that question. in the cicp we administer the program by statute . an individual we call a requester files a request for benefits and then must submit medical records to the cicp to show that there is compelling evidence to support it was directly caused by the user administration of a covered...
0
0.0
Apr 12, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
commander grimes, how is the cicp structured to ensure fairness to petitioners and how does this compare to the traditional litigation system? >> thank you for that question. we administer the program by statute. we call the requester, they file a request for benefits and then must submit article records to show that there is compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence to support that it was direct caused by the user administration of the covered countermeasure which could be the covid-19 that seen. could be a smallpox vaccine. >> let's stay focused on the covid-19 vaccine because that's what our obligation is in the select subcommittee. you feel it's more appropriate to have petitioners for covid- 19 claims to be paid by the vaccine manufacturer or by the american taxpayer? >> stationers are for the national vaccine injury compensation program and those are through the routine administer ration with an excise tax levied on it whereas requesters for the cicp are paid for compensated claims through appropriated funds and administration claims of the program is also paid f
commander grimes, how is the cicp structured to ensure fairness to petitioners and how does this compare to the traditional litigation system? >> thank you for that question. we administer the program by statute. we call the requester, they file a request for benefits and then must submit article records to show that there is compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence to support that it was direct caused by the user administration of the covered countermeasure which...
0
0.0
Apr 19, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
that the district court held that those actions are entitled to absolute prosecutorial imnity, and petitioner has not challenged that holding here. do you wantoomment on that? mr. cole: yes, thank you. respondent never asserted absolute immunity with respect to the bantam boo, e first amendment claims in this case. sote immunity was asserted with respect to a separate enrcent claim. they chose with respect to the first amendment comes to only assert qualified immunity. it was not asserted below, it was not asserted in the court of appeals, it was not raised in the bio, it is not appropriate for this court to decide at this stage. chief justice roberts: just a certain -- justice sotomayor? justice sotomar: tell me -- i'm going to ask sg this question -- how do we write this case for you that would differ from how you think the sg would write it? juice barrett asked whether you are breaking new ground, an you said "i'm not." but it seems to me you are trying to in the way you are putting this. there is a lot about the guidance letters that you agree standing on their own ulbe ok. i'm still not
that the district court held that those actions are entitled to absolute prosecutorial imnity, and petitioner has not challenged that holding here. do you wantoomment on that? mr. cole: yes, thank you. respondent never asserted absolute immunity with respect to the bantam boo, e first amendment claims in this case. sote immunity was asserted with respect to a separate enrcent claim. they chose with respect to the first amendment comes to only assert qualified immunity. it was not asserted...
0
0.0
Apr 3, 2024
04/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
so some of the earliest petitions i talked about, black petitioners, captains often sign on either cosigners of this and some of them sent in their own petitions. what they were mostly arguing was about the commerce clause. so they're upset the fact that they're paying more because, that to pay for these costs of incarceration and they know that they. can often i mean, usually black black was made pretty close to the same as white sailors, but sometimes they make a little bit less. and so now they're being forced. now it's not it's not cost effective to use black citizens. but. but to answer your question. so when they petitioned, they usually focused on the commerce clause, right? so congress congress has the power to regulate interstate trade. and so they claim that these that these states are regulating interstate. i have an interstate trading. i have an interstate trading vessel. they are costing me money. that is a regulation of trade. and again, what they claim is no, this is a quarantine law. and it doesn't matter if you can be, you know, the states have run the quarantine laws since
so some of the earliest petitions i talked about, black petitioners, captains often sign on either cosigners of this and some of them sent in their own petitions. what they were mostly arguing was about the commerce clause. so they're upset the fact that they're paying more because, that to pay for these costs of incarceration and they know that they. can often i mean, usually black black was made pretty close to the same as white sailors, but sometimes they make a little bit less. and so now...