To the stories that you have told, including the story of veronicas family. Very moving. If i were a justice, the commitment i would make to you and to all people affected by follows is that i would the law as you enacted it, and i have no agenda. I would not be coming in with any agenda. I would do equal justice under the law for all, and not try to force or disrupt in any way the quality choices that you and your colleagues have adopted. Sen. Hirono so are you saying that the impact of the Affordable Care act on the millions of people who rely upon it, that you would deem to be policy considerations that we should address . Sen. Hirono senator, i think that you choose the law and you have structured the Affordable Care act. You set the policies. And i think when a court has to interpret those statutes or decide how it applies in a Certain Circumstance, the court looks to traditional legal materials, looks to the briefs, listens to the real world impacts on the litigants before the co
Confirmation hearings. This portion included hearings from senators kamala harris, john kennedy and marsha blackburn. I apologize. Senator harris, is she available . Harris. There you are. We see you. Can you Say Something . Can you hear me, senator . Sen harris yes i can. Great. The floor is yours. Sen harris thank you. I want to extend greetings to judge barrett. I look forward to our conversation this evening. Judge barrett thank you, senator. Sen harris before i begin, i want to take a moment to talk directly to the American People. About where we are and how we got here. We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic that has hit our country harder than any other country in the world. More than 215,000 of our fellow americans have died. Millions more, including the president , republican members of this committee, and more than 100 frontline workers here at the capitol complex have been infected. This pandemic has led to a crash, causingic millions of workers to lose their jobs without
The first case that we will argue stay is down from versus the usa. Mr. Chief justice, the subpoenas at issue here are unprecedented in every sense. No court hadcases, ever upheld the use of Congress Passed subpoena power. Had toittee of congress the records of a sitting president with a broad swath of the president s personal papers to the let alone purpose of the a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a set has attempted such a gambit. Because, grist has subpoena power, it is subordinate and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need. The committees consent is neither condition and that should decide this case. The committees contend the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has always applied to congressional subpoenas. But the arguments would render those limits meaningless. But the arguments would render those limits meaningless. They claim congress can you subpoenas
Authority the da has under state law as to the president , the Second Circuit is wrong and should be reversed. If not reversed the decision weapon isis 2300 local das, overwhelming number of them elected to office and thereby accountable to local constituencies. The decision would allow any da to distract and interfere with a sitting president , subjects the president a local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and the grand jury can be utilized issue compulsory criminal process in the form of subpoenas targeting the president. This is not mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in this case with the subpoena we challenge. In the argument just concluded we asserted the subpoenas did not serve a legitimate legislative purpose and were burdensome. Yet the da copy almost verbatim the House Oversight Committee Subpoena with an additional 13 words which seek the president s tax returns without revealing the exact same language utilized by two congressional co
God save the United States and this honorable court. Chief Justice Roberts the first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump v. Mazars usa. Mr. Strawbridge . Mr. Strawbridge before these cases, mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, the subpoenas at issue here are unprecedented in every sense. Before these cases, no court had ever upheld the use of congres subpoena powers to the records of a sitting president , and no one had tried with a broad swath of the president s personal let alone purpose of a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the First Time Congress has attempted such a gambit. Because congress has subpoena power, it is subordinate, and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or particular compelling showing of need. They show neither here. Satisfied, butas thoseguments would limit meaningless. For example, as long as they could tack on a potential for broad legislation. They claim c