Versus clayton county. Thank you, mr. Chief justice. When an employer filed a male employee for dating men but does not fire female employees that dates men discriminated against the man because he treats that and worse than women that want to do the same thing. That discrimination is because of sex. Because the adverse employment action is based on the male toloyees failure to conform a particular expectation about how men should behave. That men should be attracted only to women. There is no difference between this kind of discrimination and forms of discrimination that of an already recognized by every court to have addressed them. Her example, discrimination against men who are a feminine. Is becausemination of nonconformity with an expectation about how men should behave. Carve outt to discrimination against men for being gay from title vii cannot be administered with consistency or integrity. Resort tojudges to been counting where they count epithets tos of determine whether or n
We will hear the argument is next in case 19635 donald trump versus cyrus vance. Nno County District attorney and that history has issued criminal process against the sitting president of the United States and fortit good reason, e constitution doesnt allow it. Temporary president ial immunity is constitutionally required by article two and accordingly, the supremacy clause to face any authority they have under that state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong and should be reversed. If not reversed the decision weaponizeon is 2300 local and or an overwhelming number of them are elected and thereby accountable to the local constituencies. The decision would allow any two giraffes, distract or interfere with the sitting president to the local prejudice that could influence prosecutorial decisions and those who can then utilize the criminal process in the form of subpoena targeting the president. This isnt speculation. It is what is taking place in the subpoena of the chall
Who want to do the same thing. That discrimination is because of sex. Because the adverse employment malesis based on the employee to confirm about how men should behave that men should be attracted only to women and not to men. There is no analytic difference between this kind of discrimination and forms of discrimination that have been already recognized by every court to have addressed them. For example, discrimination against men who are effeminate rather than macho. That discrimination is because of nonconformity with an expectation of how men should behave. The attempt to carve out discrimination against men for being gay, from title vii, cannot be administered with either consistency or integrity. Resort tojudges to lexical deed county where epithets to determine whether or not discrimination is based on sex or Sexual Orientation. That attempt is futile because when a man is discriminated against for being gay, he is discriminated against for not conforming to an expectation abo
The first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump versus masers usa. Mr. Strawbridge. May appease the court, the subpoenas here are unprecedented in every tenth before these cases no court upheld the use of congress subpoena power to demand the personal records of a sitting president , no kitty to committee had tried to tell of the personal papers, let alone to the purpose of considering potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a Congressional Committee has attested a gambit. It is long been understood since congress and subpoena power is applied, it is auxiliary ends subordinates, when that power is deployed against the president , and must yield any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need, the committee can satisfy neither condition here and that should decide this case. The committees contend of the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has applied to congressional subpoenas. But their arguments would render those limits meaningless
Religion. In this country, it is not the department of judges, juries or government officials twere goveo decide who ought to teach catholic fifthgraders that jesus is the son of god or who ought to teach jewish preschoolers what it means to say here israel the lord your god and fun and that is what these cases are about is who controls and who teaches the faith. The answer is easy, churches misuse thoseth who teach their faith. Indeed it ispo one of the most important religious functions for any community. Passing the faith onto the next generation. With the churchs primary agents for teaching to fifthgraders teaching them for hours a week much more than parish priests, they fall within the exception of the community. Respondents would have the court ignorcourts ignore all that substituting the standard on first and foremost the title to determine whether the exception applies. That would elevate the form and force judges to decide what is religious enough to qualify and it would help