Welcome tonights guest for our conversation regarding whether or not the Supreme Courts decision in roe should be overturned. Catherineo my left is colbert who recently retired as the constants had williams 66 director of the center for leadership studies, professor of leadership studies and professional practice in the Political Science department at barnard college. She argued the landmark case of planned parenthood versus casey before the Supreme Court. Fore then, she has worked different organizations such as people for the american way. Is a professor at Florida State University College of law. Shes a historian and has written numerous books and articles on this topic. Her new book is titled abortion in america a legal history. And is forthcoming soon. Catherine foster is president and ceo of americans united for life. Boards of thethe Christian Legal Society in d. C. , the family policy alliance, and the rockville women center. Shes a fellow with the James Wilson Institute on nat
Microphone. Ill speak louder, your honor. After the supplemental briefing it is clear that all parties this has jurisdiction and thats because the federal government is continuing enforcing the Affordable Care act until a Court Finally orders it not to do so. He legal harm from the courts below order and the participation of the states and house of representatives ensures that there will be an adversarial issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature your standing interveneors states, are you conceding the plaintiff states . No were not. You are in new orleans in the fifth telling us that the state of texas doesnt have standing to legitimate here, explain that. What is the distinction that licenses you to have a standing here. The judgment below would cost the defendant states hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds. The state plaintiffs rely on a series of standing that they have not proved up. They argue that the individual mandate, even
Barnard college. In 1992, she argued the landmark case of planned parenthood versus casey before the Supreme Court. Since then, she has worked for different organizations such as people for the american way. Mary bigler is a professor at Florida State University College of law. Shes a historian and has written numerous books and articles on this topic. Her new book is titled abortion in america a legal history. And is forthcoming soon. Catherine foster is president and ceo of americans united for life. In addition, she serves on the boards of the Christian Legal Society in d. C. , the family policy alliance, and the rockville womens center. Shes a fellow with the James Wilson Institute on national rights. Join me in welcoming our panelists. [applause] we are here to discuss the future of roe. Over the past year or so, there has been a number of state laws and activities about reproductive rights. Some state activity has been to go far in protecting reproductive rights. Other states hav
Yesterdays panel rolled that the health care individual mandate is unconstitutional. The here is the oral argument in its entirety. You may proceed. Thank your honor and may it please the court, i will be sharing my time with mr. Letter from the house of representatives and dividing rebuttal time. To start with the issues raised in the court in the supplemental briefing order, we think the states were clearly injured by the judgment below and are aiming to appeal it. Judge elrod you might want to move the microphone. Mr. Siegel after this up a, all parties agreed this court has appellate jurisdiction. That is because of the continuing enforcing of the Affordable Care act until the court orders not to do so. They now welcome it, and the participation of the states and house of representatives and ensure their will be an ensure there will be an adversarial presentation of the issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature of this appeal is that when ju
This is for an argument in the case of versus truck. Nice to see you again. Thank you. Thomas byron on behalf of the government defend it with is ecker for the department of Defense Office of general counsel. This case is about an internal transfer of funds among deities accounts. In the internal transfer itself, didnt harm plaintiffs in fact they contend otherwise for the content that their interests will harmed by the subsequent downstream use of those funds for construction of border barriers and roads. But the transfer itself was authorized by a provision in the appropriations act. In that provision was not designed to protect the kind of interest that the plaintiffs here assert against quote recreational a set environmental that they face. This zone of interest requirement which is the universal requirement, so weather they are seeking a review of the ata or on an equitable overviews, claim, and applies in any event and it asked this quote to determine whether those kinds of inter