Case 19431 Little Sisters of the poor versus pennsylvania and the consolidated case. General francisco and 2011 required employers tons provide Insurance Coverage to have those that objected to the coverage to spark years ofki litigation and in 2017 with a commitment to religious liberty the government to promulgate new rules exempting those employers who objected to the mandate. They are lawful for two reasons, First Authorized byor section 1834 to require employers with the types of coverage with the Services Administration provides for and supports and then to authorize the agencies to require most employers to have contraceptive coverage for those have sincere conscientious objections. And that coverage for everyone or no one with a Longstanding Church exemption the effective exemption for church plans and indeed respondents under the accommodation itself to violate the statute since the Group Health Plan dont provide the mandated coverage. Also to authorize a religious exemption t
The event the vote in the commons produced a typically ambiguous but Drama Building result the Withdrawal Agreement bill alternately advanced past a 2nd reading with 329 votes in favor and 299 opposed however the p. M. s quickly m. P. s quickly qualified that outcome by then voting 32223082 reject mr johnsons plans for a thursday vote on final passage mr johnson threatened early in the day to poll the Withdrawal Agreement and push one to call his own an election if his plans fell through they were apparently for oil by the house of commons. And now im going to take it all down today as ambivalent actions were now joined by former m. P. Of scottish. Welcome. Tommy after todays touted as. High with the bill advancing but the p. M. s timetable being rejected again so where does the process go from here just over an hour ago we just saw a report that mr johnson called the results joyful which seems quite remarkable so well the Prime Minister back up his threat to push for election are tryi
Have to be and we will have to go through with how much is the right order may not like you will have to go forward to run a general election. Without a pop up on the board johnson has a hit a new threat he yanked the bill today we take it a dollar and where were joined by former. Take on the situation and what this means for the situation going forward. Not again. By the worlds 5th largest economy in california. Power in the bay area for up to half a 1000000 people are correspondent rachel love and frank up to speed on the Embattled Energy company and speaking of imbalance companies the drama continues as soft bank moves in to take over a Coworking Office start up investigative journalist ben swan is standing by to give us the latest on the start of your show today so lets go to. Another decision. Briggs at this time with the result leaves our global report today Prime Minister Boris Johnson after having been denied a vote to advance his renegotiated verge version of braggs it on satu
A welcome. Tommy after todays touted as. High that it is touted as decisive we finally have some results though ambiguous on the face with the bill advancing but the p. M. s timetable being rejected again so where does the process go from here just over an hour ago we just saw a report that mr johnson called the results joyful which seems quite remarkable so when the Prime Minister back up his threat to push for election are trying to accommodate the common house of commons on a timetable. As a good question that krissy the problem is we probably have taken one step forward and 2 steps back to the because there was a vote in principle and support of the board of joints and it was that all deal which morse commentators even though was a supporter no believe was even worse than trees amazed so thats the irony of ironies however the m. P. s in the house of commons then did as they slumped borders johnson firmly across the face because he said he was demanding to have this whole process do
The subpoena last april. We will show you the oral argument from july. It is a little more than an hour. , may it please the court indulge me for a moment. Are counsels. Questions. To get i wanted to start out by saying i dont get to say this very is one of and this those instances when the District Courts opinion is extremely strong, especially when combined with the Supreme Court, and it answers a lot of the arguments. The District Courts statement that there is deference to congress here is wrong. Those come from cases where the president is not a party. Here we have a dispute between two equal coordinates. Keep anyould we different . Why wouldnt we look objectively as a court to determine if congress is pursuing a legitimate i dont think it would change the standard and it does not change because of the behavior. Cases thathe articulate the deferential tondard our cases which go two branches of government. Why. T dont understand dont understand why we would adopt the standard peer