The executive was by rejecting the notion that the appointment power should reside with the senate. The framers considered that and they rejected it. And the reason they rejected it, as this court noted in its edmund opinion, was to protect the executive against encroachment by the legislature. But the compromise they settled on in moving away from that is that the president will nominate and the senate, if it so chooses, can confirm a nominee. You spoke of the intransigence of the senate. Well, they have an absolute right not to confirm nominees that the president submits. And it seems to me, following up on Justice Kagans point, youre latching on to the recess appointment clause as a way to combat that intransigence rather than to deal with the happenstance that the senate is not in session when a vacancy becomes open. Well, but those things there are often situations in which the senate is not in session when a vacancy becomes open or needs to be filled, i guess would be the more ac
What this gets at or what this requires courts to do is to decide who is a minister. On the one hand, there may be some which you could plainly it might be more obvious questions like someone who teaches religion, religion teachers. What the court has said is those were follow more in the heartland. It gets a little more difficult if you have a Religious School like the Jewish School or the Catholic School in our lady of guadalupe who has a teacher who, lets say, is teaching math. The courts have to come up with a test to decide whether such a person is a minister or not. What the cases said is its a multifactor test where no one factor is determinative. It cant be determinative just that the teacher teaches math rather than religion. For example in grescott the teacher spent time teaching jewish prayers and saying prayers with the class and the school considered it part of the teachers duty to inform the student, to teach them about jewish prayers and perform them in that tradition. E
She was such a great listener. Kindness and empathy throughout. Of course, lets dont forget the notepad moment im here. Ask your questions, all i need is my United States senate notepad and Starbucks Coffee and were doing great. Thanks to all of you. Stand by. Senator graham gavels to order. Women conservatives have had a hard time. Some want to marginalize the contribution because you come out on a different side of an issue, abortion. This hearing is not to punch through a Glass Ceiling but a concrete barrier around conservative women. Youll shatter that barrier. Ive never been more proud of a nominee than i have of you. You have been candid to this body about who you are and what you believe and reassuring in your disposition and this is history being made. The first time in American History weve nominated a woman who is unashamedly prolife and embraces her faith without apology. She is going to the court. A seat at the table is waiting on you. And it will be a great signal to all y
People forget. But i do think now that there is a possibility of a sustained longerterm effort to slowly start to undo the policies. And as we change policies and people understand that crime rates are not going to spike up it changes peoples hearts and minds around incarceration and offers better, more Productive Solutions that actually do a better job of protecting our Public Safety. Im committed to this work. It is all the work ive ever done actually since graduating, and i think that really the moment of opportunity is now. Our lives again to end the day we become silent about the things that matter. That is a quote from Martin Luther king, jr. Out of keep on my wall, and i absolutely think that is the case. Im very fortunate that he been able to devote my career to working on issues that i think about it. I think it matters that there is tremendous human devastation and brought out of unnecessary incarceration in this country. I think it is terrible that we treat children with suc
The Current Court is moving rather frightening way to some people in the direction of reviewing laws that affect the economy in a serious way. For example, laws that were passed in vermont to make it harder for pharmaceutical companies to jack up charged by giving information about drugs to certain doctors so that there were prescribed more costly. The court struck that down on the basis of the First Amendment. After four joined the conservatives and match. Breyer went almost apoplectic. This is a return of what was called the locker area, the time from the 1890s in 1937 when the court was striking down economic legislation rather loosely. If you strike down an economic legislation simply because it deals with speech in one way or another, it deals with information information is at the heart of almost everything. And using the First Amendment that way could give the court the kind of power that i think is presuppose in your question. Some people think that is exactly what was right be