Please keep in mind there will be an opportunity for q a after the remarks from our speaker. I want to ask you to line up at the mics here and here in order to ask questions. Im tom hungar and i have the honor to introduce todays speaker who will be regaling us with his always fascinating insights on the Supreme Courts just completed term. It was certainly an eventful term, so there should be no shortage of fascinating material. For example, as you know chief justice i mean roberts continued his solemnonic approach to controversial cases, splitting the baby and sending mixed messages in ways that left everyone unhappy in one way or another. One thing that has become Crystal Clear this term is that for good or ill the court now truly deserves its moniker. And thats due in large part to perhaps the single most significant event of the term, the october 6 confirmation of the courts Newest Supreme Court justice, brett kavanaugh. Justice kavanaugh has already begun to chart a course of principled adheerps to rule of law of and text and structure of the constitution. The nation owes President Trump and the 50 United States senators who voted to confirm him an ongoing debt of gratitude for this superb appointment. Of course not everyone acknowledges that debt with enthusiasm. In march of this year, for example, wouldbe president Kamala Harris expressed concern that, quote, we are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court. Apparently things got even worse very quickly because two months later she said, quote, you and i are experiencing a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court. And that was even before the chief justice announced his opinion in the census case. In fairness, other politicians have offered more thoughtful commentary. For example, noted Supreme Court analyst alexandria ocasiocortez recently observed that the Supreme Court and i quote, has gotten things horrifyingly wrong in the past. A sentiment that im sure we all share. Although, we might disagree with her on some of the details. Now ironically her solution to this problem is itself a throwback to the past. She urges that we pack the Supreme Court. Again, in the abstract thats not necessarily a terrible idea. But the devil is in the details. Not to be outdone wouldbe president Elizabeth Warren has also been packing the courts which assures us would be a means of depoliticizing the Supreme Court. Wrap your mind around that one if you can. Maybe aoc can explain it to us. Fortunately we have with us yet another noted Supreme Court analyst whose views differ from those i just mentioned. Todays speaker is wellknown to the Federalist Society and is no stranger to this podium having delivered the annual Supreme Court round up on multiple occasions. Miguels resume is too filled with remarkable achievements to go into detail so ill mention a few highlights. Miguel clarked for judge on the Second Circuit and for Justice Anthony kennedy. He served as an assistant United States attorney in the Southern District of new york and as an assistant to the solicitorgeneral in the bush 41 and clinton administrations. For the past two decades miguel has been a highly esteemed and sought after litigator. Hes argued 23 cases in the Supreme Court and dozens in the lower appellate courts. And his legal acumen and incisive repartee are widely celebrated. Indeed Justice Kagen has rightly called miguel and i quote a towering intellect. Miguel in turn has said Justice Kagens views on interpretation are and i again quote are firmly as center left as my own are center right. All i can say is if Justice Kagen and Miguel Astrada define the center i shudder to think what the fringes are like. Notwithstanding these accolades and accomplishments miguel is remarkably humble, at least the judge from his oral argument transcripts. To give just one example when presenting argument in the case involving consecutive versus conkrpt sentencing miguel used the term conseckativity, prompting the justice to ask conseckativity a word . Miguel replied i dont know Justice Scalia and as a nonnative speaker of the language, i feel hesitate to give the court advice on these sorts of matters. Fortunately i trust he will not be hesitant to advise us on the Significant Developments of the recently completed term. Please join me in here we are again. If you think it will make it to the next year. Seen the emergency is not real, here i am. Thank you again for having me. Is an honor obviously. I am grateful. I cannot tell you it was the most exciting time we have had recently. We have a new justice. It is another frequent occurrence lately. Despite all of the dire prediction of the liberals. We are also here. We have not descended into the handmaids tale. Women are still not in servitude. There are no lunch counters. Except for when nancy pelosi does. The new justice has caused no major waves. I guess it is understandable. After the rough confirmation process in all of that. These statistics are probably will be skewed. He voted with the majority in 91 percent of the 64 cases. This may distress you a little bit. He voted with the chief a lot. He parted ways with the chief a lot as well. I said last year that the court would likely move somewhat to the right again. That is generally true. I also said in contrast to the more liberal members of the court, the members of the conservative bloc tend not to vote as a block. That i have differences in methodology. They tend to sort of go to the beat of their own drum. That has proven itself. Each of the members of the conservative majority if you want to call it that voted with the liberals. At least one time. He crossed over in four cases to give the liberals a victory. It to them crossed over several times. Those of you who think we have a conservative majority, we actually have the 54 liberal court. Now the chief justice may have not been the justice the most often. He did it in some of the bigger cases. Before we get into the nitty gritty, we do have this tradition that we inherit from. We give a prize. It is a prize for the individual who exemplifies. What to do. We live in washington dc. Is very hard to narrow down this list. It is washington dc. We do have a few selections of rules that help. One of them, we do not shoot the foxhole. Is not eligible. As much is he missing to really win the award. We moved to people that are actually eligible. Start with the mention to the 300 or so noname wannabes. They are tripping over each other to open the borders. Get rid of private health insurance. Provide free college education. Generally destroy the country as we know it. The only question, why theyre not being investigated. There open about it. Not of course he mentioned aoc. We can start with her statement that they were concentration camps. They invited her to visit auschwitz with him. To learn about history. Which he naturally said no to. My favorite was her draft plan. The Green New Deal in which he said was situated to those unwilling to work. In fairness to her, she is probably playing to the basic party. Of course again, images senator warn of the great state. I think she displayed the excellent judgment she would bring to the white house by not only taking but criticizing the beautiful dna test she took to demonstrate her ancestry. The dna test showed she had such an amount of native american dna that it would all disappear if a mosquito bit her. There it is. In the end, the title will be awarded. Dishonorable behavior. That can only be one winner. Although we hate to repeat, the winter can only be the same one as last her. California. You may recall last year. She earned the award. I actually have not think the good senator could sink any lower. Lo and behold she does. She is a democrat from california. As you all know, before the confirmation hearings, she received a letter accusing discoverable of Sexual Assault when he was a teenager. This obviously had to be taken seriously. The responsible thing would be for her to go to the chairman of the committee. Lecture it was investigated confidentially. If you do that know. She kept it under wraps. While she and her staff helped the accuser. Take a polygraph. They set on this the hearing. Only to make a public announcement to inflate maximum political damage when she felt the confirmation vote was near. She got caught on this, she pulled the mr. Mcgee act. She was too confused to really understand what was going on. In fact, she is a malicious visitor is. She has richly deserved the award again this year. That you have it. From california. Anyway, bill into the marriage cases. Five reversals. There were about 20 percent of the cases. This is slightly higher than last her. Still within the norm. One case will be reactive. It deals with the incandescent question of whether or not most of oklahoma is still on indian reservation. Does anybody care . Anyway yes some people do care. The performance of the surface appears on parallel. Only one circuit with the hundred percent of the time. Only had one case. If you look at the circuits that has had cases in any significant number, the winner is the ninth circuit. Six is a good guess. The main circuit had 14 cases in the Supreme Court. The guy slammed on 12 of them. Many are different on the west coast. There it is. You will not be surprised to learn the people who mostly agree with each other goes against the majority. Turning to some of the cases. That would otherwise fire me from their job. We will start with alabama. It is a come back from a case that we had last her. He is a disability been made. Master he was in front of the court. He does not remember committing the crime. The 11th circuit. The Supreme Court reversed the 11th circuit. The question is whether or not to apprehend where the state is coming out. Back we go. He goes into the state courts this time. I think he is trying to prove that he is really insane. That he likes to bet against the house. He is seeking first conviction relief. Off he goes. They find him competent to be executed. Back it goes to the Supreme Court again. Trying to ride a distance from the previous case in which the liberal justice had indicated that the underlying question might be circle. The court faced with this question. Excess him to hear the question whether or not he could be executed if you do not meet with the crown. Lo and behold he leaves. He switches gears completely. By the time the new justices of the court, it does not really want to argue. Is arguing about whether the alabama courts have the right to find him competent. The courts surprisingly since the case back to the court in alabama. They find them if they do not do the analysis thoroughly or correctly. Chief Justice Roberts crosses over. To send this case back. The case would have been for was for. One way of looking at that, he was just floating to keep the trend moving and lecture the case was not there. He pitched a fit. In the Business Case that came to the court where you presented the case and the argument would give me. He said this made a mockery of the courts rules. It was effective in this case. Is challenging the execution used by the state. The state uses a single drug. Dma sees it enough to kill. In his case he has a series in his neck and his airway. He says it will blow up doing the execution if this drug is administered. He had a alternative drug that he proposed to be used where he said that shouldve been used instead. So that he would not be subjected to all this extra pain. That the existing product would oppose. It was that all of these challenges are covered by the existing case law. Basically in this case, the inmate has to show there is an alternative method of execution that will lessen the risk of severe pain. That the state just refuses to go with that method. Is proposing method was nitrogen hypoxia. It was sort of hypothetical. It was not in use anyway. The liberal did not exceed agree that we control does. All of the usual stuff. There was to make things. Apart from the final analysis. One of them is, this is the Death Penalty. That is not supposed to be a picnic. People that were hand did not enjoy. That is what he says. Think about the eighth amendment. It is made to keep the state from the superefficient of torturous pain. On top of what the actual execution will necessarily entail in himself. Second, says all these people have been beating the deputy but coming up with all of these and list the pills. The lower court should place all of the efforts to come up. That again has been a pattern of the Death Penalty cases for the last three or four decades. You have a majority of the courts. You have to watch for that. Was see how that is becoming. He will separately take issue with that. It does not matter when they come up with the claimed. You have to listen to it because it is very important. The next issue, the court did not consider on the merits. One that came up. It turned out to be somewhat pretentious. It had to do with whether or not it inmate was on the verge of being executed is entitled to have his own faith in the execution chamber. Many of the states have chaplains that are employees of the state. In many states usually have somebody that is a christian. You may have a couple. You have members of every minority religion. In the first case, we had a muslim inmate. The 11th circuit gave him a stay. Finding the refusal. The Supreme Court dictated the stay. In a series of very bitter opinions. The main theory of the state majority was that the inmate have come too late to make this request. Do not play with this this way. They had come basically about a week before the execution. Some of the justices referenced in the opinions throughout the time. A couple weeks later, the case had affixes. The case was murphy versus collins. In this case, you had a buddhist. Texas at other chaplains but not a buddhist. In this case, the inmate did obtain a stay. With chief Justice Roberts switching sides to go for the liberal. To give the person a stay. There was a concurrence by Justin Cavanaugh pointing out that all the state has to do is give equal treatment. The state can solve this problem by allowing no one in the execution room. It is what i think they are doing later on. Several weeks later, that you should a dissent. They basically took the view for this serious question. The mostly was just a slight. The two should have been denied a stay. That prompted him weeks later to fire yet another concurrence taking issue with them. This is obviously been a warm and cuddly time. I am still trying to figure out what he needs a buddhist. Our final case. It deals with the excessive clause of the eighth amendment. He was convicted of doing drugs. And still in. The state wanted to forfeit is 42,000 removal. He had purchased with the insurance money he got when his father died. The Hallmark Channel cannot make this up. This was more than four times the Fund Available for these crimes. The Supreme Court thought this was hunkydory. The Supreme Court took the case. Unanimously flipped the. It is indeed incorporated. There you have it. The justice concurred separately to say that under his feud, all of the business should happened on the immunity clause. They concur separately to say in his view, it did not matter a hill of beans. It is a six amendment case. Or at least what he understands it. We start the story with roe versus ortega in 19 years ago. You otherwise have pursued. You do not have to face or to win the ability to demonstrate under strict. You do not have to demonstrate it. You lost the appeal because jetliner was incompetent. That is why. They have several crimes. He gets specified since his. The judge gives him exactly the sentence he bargains for. s sissy waives all the right to take any appeal. You got exactly what he bargained for. Returns to his lawyer and says file an appeal. The lawyer having just landed from mars or perhaps attending the expo. If you understand how this works, he would be in breach of the plea agreement. He may end up in a much worse situation. They have lowered it. Since a lot of these were conviction remedies or Occupational Therapy for inmates. The action filed in which the inmate accuses his lawyer. They take this somewhat reasonable view that there could be no prejudice. Gussie lost on appeal that he had waived by country. Before the case was not applied here. The case goes to the Supreme Court. In a 63 opinion, by the justice, the rule of law will apply. Even in the case where you have waived your bill by contract. You lost something that you had no right to anyway. How could this be . It is conceivable that the defendant could have brought something to argue on appeal outside of the waiver. Or, it is possible the government may be incompetent and not think of raising the waiver on a appeal. All of these things are possible. They went in with the breed saying you should have at least required the descendent to show what it is he wouldve argued that was considerably out of the waiver. So you can assess what is that. Whether or not that is something that is in fact a good demonstration. You would think it would take a reasonable view. This is actually not surprising given the court decision. You remember that sort of same lineup. Basically admitted to everything the state had and disputed given the element of the crime. Here we are. Some of these things do not make sense. We did not have any big cases. We did have the internal issues of drunk driving. Billeting we know at this point is that the Court Doctrine speaks at more than when you get behind the wheel after two beers. It deals with the accident. He was so drunk. You can take the guys blood under the circumstances. It is quickly dissipating with time. It seems to make sense. Fastforward. The course that if you got it from his mother case, it was circumstances you were wrong. It does not excel extensive. Had to get a warrant. It is not an emergency. The state said if i busted for drunk driving than i could take the blood to the arrest. Three years later the court said nice try. You would get the impression from that. Everything else. Based on the majority of the court that you have to get a wart. Left on. We havent found sort of half naked on the beach. Will have called in saying he was driving drunk. They find him and give him a breathalyzer. Then they take him to the station where he quickly passes out. When they take his blood, under a state law that says give him consent. The issue that goes to the Supreme Court is whether or not the state statute that says you giving consent is like taking to the world. You get to the Supreme Court. Was an opinion for the court. On the doctrine. As a rule of law, there is something to this about. The ruling is that it was accident. The mr. Coffee busy with something else. They did not have time to get the wart. They knew well that applies, in all similar cases is the alcohol plus a past that defendant. It is an exigency. The guy passes out, the culture busy they had to take him to the hospital. Dissipation of blood present past that defendant. I think the people tend to pass up. Summer not sure what is love. There you have it. His fifth in a separate. It did not address the merits. Is that we should have addressed that question. Fascinating time. This could have been a big deal if it had went the other way. If you have 2 prosecutions by the state or federal government. The double jeopardy doctrine. The whole theory is that you cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offense. It is a violation of law. If you violate the law, that is not double jeopardy. That is 2 offensive. It is a matter of textual analysis. I am sort of scratching myself in my head. Over that. It was not held to apply to the state in 1969. He has to deal with the offense analysis. Unoriginal list. It is sort of hard for me. Is he had you come to this conclusion. There you have it. Next criminal case. He was accused of killing a number of employees in the furniture shop. He was fired. Six times. The same prosecutor. The first three partners were overturned for violations. Six was the interim. He was convicted. The Supreme Court took an interest in the case. Joined by the 4 members of the court. The state had engaged in violations that warranted the returning of the conviction. This is mostly of the maximum case. He wrote separately to point out this was an exceptional case. Those of you who advantage we know it is difficult. To 58 in this case which those who voted for criminal defendant. You probably take it to the bank. U. S. Versus davis is another case dealing with the residual clause. The crime of violence. This is yet in another statute. Once again, the court found this vague. You may recall that he had criminal statute. There have been a number of cases with identical language that have been held. The last criminal case as of the 11th circuit court. If you live in an area with the gun, you should probably be running for congress as a democrat. You have to be a bartender for. In this case, it is a federal crime. The question is whether or not you have to know about the gun and your status as illegal. In any event, they have a motion is held that you had to know about the gun and or status. The Supreme Court disagreed with that. That is going to have a lot of practical consequences. 6000 of these cases last year alone. Gives you more of an insight into the cause of this country more than anything else. We are going to touch briefly on a couple of cases. It raises the rating question. Were talking back to the cots. When they basically take him into custody. This comes out of something that can only happen in alaska. The arctic main festival. People go to get really drunk and engage in really extreme sports in hopes to meet the governor. I have no idea. Apparently, it is a member people who are not supposed to be there any minors. Their nostrils been doing the extreme sport. They were trying to interview a minor but heavily drinking. Tried to intervene to keep the couple also to the matter. Whatever this went downhill. The evidence with the supervisor to arrive. What you would expect as being the offense. It was all dropped letter. Theory and this was the reason for the arrest was that the defendant had had an altercation with a earlier in which the defendant refused to talk to the trooper. This is like a major plus additional effort. The main circuit holds that this person has to get a First Amendment claim. That is not a defense for the First Amendment claim. The question here, as were the case is controlled by an earlier test. In hartman, they had held that probable cause for arrest defeats the sort of action. For malicious prosecution. Violation of the First Amendment. You can think of that action as an in room. That you would have for the judicial function. The question was whether or not you basically apply something that is a common along fourth amendment. To the First Amendment issue. They upheld that yes, probable cause is a defense to the claim. This is a opinion by the chief justice. This is not really the type of performance. Is a little bit squiggly. There was a separate opinion which would have ruled for the cops. He word that the court was confusing doctrines and should do more to take a libertarian aspect of this. The distances separately to our application of the framework to all this. We will talked quickly on some Business Cases. If you are bringing some sort of claim, usually just sue. You have to be a direct purchaser. The app store is set up so that you purchased from apple but in fact, it is an agency issue. The application makers put the products on the apple shop. Apple taking a 30 percent commission. Apple 30 percent was a markup that was some sort of price fixing. Apple was some sort of a monopolist. Whether or not they should have been the application makers and whether or not this was a violation of the formula. This sort of agreed with apple. The Supreme Court somewhat surprisingly in an opinion by Justice Kevin will be somewhat the libertarians on this disagreed with apple. Held that since it is a formal matter, it actually did not matter how the interim arrangement was structured. There was a very strong descent. The other conservatives. It is possible this may be ductwork by rearranging how the contract was structured. It was sort of interesting to see again the conservative two sides of this. There is a fascinating civil procedure. The basically has to do with the real issue of a counterclaim defendant. Actually removed. Here there is a state. You try to remove. The question is whether you cant. The answer is no. He basically said there was a case from 1941. The cannot exercise rights under the removal. Congress can always change it. We came back to the internal questions of arbitration. The internal efforts to evade and defeat the Supreme Court ruling in this area. This was one of those protection issues. He wanted to get out of his arbitration issues. What the ninth circuit tried to do is to allow estate low rule. The basically said that in contrast, this was an opinion 2 1. Just his right heart and would love. Again i think judge fernandez. And wesley said, the Supreme Court cannot catch the mall. Somebody else once said that when he died, there have to go facedown because he was bound to be flipped at least once. There you have it. The Supreme Court. Basically disagreed with the ninth circuit on this. The role of stay low that it was preempted. The liberals disagreed. They run a separate descent. I do not have time to do a diplomatic reading. It would have to be sort of early ninth circuit. It went to the Supreme Court pointing out the constitution does allow judges to serve during good behavior. You cannot vote what your dad. Another circuit special. You had to basically fall the petition on that appeal in excess. The Supreme Court. Is a do not mean that. What do we do if there is a real emergency. Stasis exit. There was likely to be an important case. Whether you can basically have a suspect. Everything goes to charities and whatever. The court did not get to it as important as it was. And accepted the suggestion to look careful of people possible lack of spending. There were another couple of Business Cases. I will not get into the details. There were several law cases that again i will skip for the same reason. He loves indians. You may think this makes sense. Coming from the west. He always voted against indians. You cannot get anything from that. Turn into something actually interesting. We turned to the First Amendment. Our first case is an opinion. Tom Manhattan Community axis. The question, is the city of new york has private Corporation Public access channels. Are those channels a public forum. Somebody was to put some tv show on these channels. Visit have a First Amendment right to put my program on this Public Access to. The Second Circuit advises. They thought it was not a public forum. It is a cable company. It is hard to see them as a government. The court sort of say the question of what happened that the city was actually running. They would be the city running something about private cable company. In any event, it does not seem to have any major implications. Villages something that actually does. We are back. You may recall 2 years ago dealt with a very entertaining despairs. The basically said you cannot register a trademark if it despairs persons or institutions. The Supreme Court basically overturned that under the First Amendment. There was viewpoint based. The government have made a valiant effort to save the trademarks were covered in speech. He basically made fun of them. The government had registered things. That may be the speech under the administration. Ultimately, the despair mccalls went down. Prohibits the registration of immoral or scandalous marks. They have a mark that was put down for registration. It is for clothing. This is going to be on cable so i guess it is a love. The brand of the market. Now, he insists that the brand is called if you ct. The majority of the opinion pointed out that you may read it differently. Is the equivalent of the parsable form. In any event, all my justices agreed the immoral part of this is equally unconstitutional. They have more issues with the scandalous parts. It was set up so the chief justice, that i do not understand. Moving to even more important case, we have the American Legion versus the american humanist association. This deals with the plus. It was directed in 1925. Over the years, there is always someone who likes to rock the boat. Someone who is easily offended. Some of the proposed remedies were chop off the hours. I mean honestly. The Supreme Court returns the fourth circuit. Even though they did not think this was that difficult. She was going to finally be incurred. He basically said that it had been criticize a lot. He came up with a rule for minimal doors me out all on. Is part of the song missing all alone. Noted this should apply to the states anyway. We will keep it offended by the image. Is a symbol of christianity. We have possible party gerrymandered. If you suffered because you are really just the really had no limits. Then you could sue about people who share your party of information in different ways. She goes to. The justice of acting on. The republicans got sued. The ruled that it was such a political question. Is impossible for integrative managers standards. Therefore we can just stay out of this. Is a separate kind of case in the fourth been. Is not as important as if it was a late gerrymandering. It was interesting with the combination of justices. There was an examination case. Someone alarmingly or majority in the. Of beaufort released by state custody. The government won that one. We can do it in court of another state. s constitutional education. It is all about roe versus wade. It was the ultimate ruling from 1985. Basically wants to become. In this court. You have the court overruled. We have other cases that we really care about. This has to do. This is an interesting case for the conservative port. It all has to do with the 21st amendment. It really puts the conservatives a little bit to the test. Back in the 19th century, the act was basically tried to help the state. The Supreme Court found ways to get around them. Basically stop them from trying to regulate bins. They we have the 21st amendment. Getting rid of revisions. Is a basically the state to do whatever they want. From 1933 and on to the 1950s, the Supreme Court case basically said the 21st amendment is intended to be an exception to the clause. That is the whole point of it. There is an opinion. By justice brenda in 1933. Just after the 21st amendment. Basically has the same claim was discussed. It concludes with the line to accept the claim here would involve me the construction of the amendment. You the conservatives that the view of the people. Usually take the view of the justice. Their acceptance. Is and one the best measures of the First Amendment. What is surprising, starting in 1984 and 2005, you have three cases in which the 70 members of the Supreme Court so drowned by the free market that they had just discovered that all of the early cases in the 21st amendment. That actually stole the 21st amendment. The states were not allowed to engage in protectionism. Estate that has the residency requirement for people who sell liquor engage in violation of the 21st amendment, the vote on the Police Interest in temperance. Mistaken say we wanted to lower in the state. They use if youre actually selling it on your own children they get run over by the drunk driver. They accepted with interest. The resort of opinionated. Is an interesting shift of the court. The commerce clause. You have to come up with good interest that is tied to your interest in relating liquor. We are not going to tell you exactly what those are going to be. One of the big cases this sort of fizzled. Everybody thought there was going to deal with the reemergence of the litigation doctor. It did not turn out that way. The offenders registration act. It basically says that if you are a sex offender, now, there is a detailed second of what you have to do. There was a lot of people who were already sex offenders who had been convicted. That is other than bill clinton. To them, the attorney general with figure out what to do with them. You would think that is an immense delegation without any guiding principle. Much every attorney general has basically taken the views as to what they can do. This was the idea case. Disorder bring the delegation claim. He was not participating. In an opinion by justice kagan, she discovered based on the purpose of the statute and the legislative history, the attorney general does not have any discretion. They must register estevez again. It would be hard to get out of this in the language in the statute. The justice did not join the opinion. Get the vote needed for the court. He said i cannot say giving them the standards they have had that this is not most of. Willing to reconsider our beginning. Sort of anticlimatic. I do not think we will ever have a statute. He could have said that. He couldve said the case for the argument. Being able to actually take part. Everybody said it was going to be a big issue as to when we are going to get rid of our difference. The victory for justice kagan. It is not that meaningful. Physically exhausted the toolkits on every construction. Very little for agencies. The chief justice typically says she was correct. It did not actually mean that much. How to get rid of this. The chief justice sort of rolled separately to say what they were doing was necessarily indicative of what they may do. But we will see. I am sure there waiting. The secretary of commerce. Some youre just not holding up. He decided early on that he wanted to censor the question. For those of you who do not know, most civilized countries actually have a similar question other symptoms. The united nations, that actually recommends that countries that ask these questions is not crazy to know how many senses you have in your own country. It is a sentence. For those of you who do not keep up with the news, this was a question for most of the life of our country. Everybody into basically the 1950s. In the shorter form of the questionnaire. He decides to do this. Too often the case with some of the administrations initiative, he gets on the phone and starts calling everybody. To jim up a request from them to actually prove in the census. He was sent to fight the census bureau. All the democrats do not want to do. Ultimately he gets it by getting the Civil Rights Division to do this. Calling the attorney general. Is sort of explains that he did this because the Justice Department wanted. Is for everybody that basically said this will be the minority vote. I am not understanding. If you are citizen you are entitled to vote. I do not follow the chain of reasoning that would deter someone. Basically takes the bait and orders all sorts of massive discovery. Even though youre supposed to sell these things, there is 12,000 pages of a truck load that is dumped. Trying to set this up. They were basically told this is illegal under every conceivable ground. There is a little nervous service to the Second Circuit. For those of you who dont the record. You cannot appeal directly. The court does get them before judgment. An opinion by chief Justice Roberts. The court since the case back basically agreeing with the challenges. Most of the court agrees with the administration. The court believes of the constitution. The immigration clause does not digest this set of question. You ask all sorts of things. The court sort of agrees this is not a violation. Even though all the lefties have tried to fight the secretary, he gave a very recent escalation as to why he did not agree with them. He went to the reason we as to why he wanted to do this. The court sort of agrees this is not a violation of the procedure act. Just as the obama care decision. . There were get to the end. There was a pretext here. What he said about the department of justice does not match what he really thought. We know what he really thought. Because all of this documents show he was looking to do this from the beginning. The two things that are interesting. It was improper for the judge to require the administration to produce the discovery. The second point, now that we have it, we are going to its great vacation reading available wherever books are sold or at c span. Org the president s. Counselor kelly and conway signed a congressional subpoena to not testify before the House OversightReform Committee about her alleged hatch act violation. The Committee Chairman said if she does not testify that they will hold a business meeting on july 25, 2019 to hold her in contempt of congress