So your point, im taking, is tt the two main Health Reasons show that this law was targeted at abortion. Thats absolutely correct. Thank you, counsel. Im. Is there any other medical condition, like taking the pills, that are required to be done in hospital . Not as a prelude to a procedure in hospital, but an independent, you know, i know there are cancer treatments by pills now. How many of those are required to be done in front of the doctor . None, your honor. There are no other medication requirements and no other outpatient procedures that are required by law to be performed in an asc. Thank you, counsel. General verrilli . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, the effects of the texas law in this case are much more extreme than those of any abortion law this court has considered since casey. It closes most abortion facilities in the state and exponentially increases the obstacles of women seeking abortions in the state on the basises of a medical justification that canno
The committee will come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare a recession of the committee at any time. The hearing is the annual report of the bureau of consumer for natural protection. I now recognize myself for three minutes to give an Opening Statement. Not that we need a reminder, but if theres one thing that the president ial campaigns of both parties have shown us, that the American People are indeed angry. They have a right to be angry. After seven years of obamanomics, they are suffering through a failed economic recovery. Americans are even angrier though at having their lives increasingly ruled by out of touch washington elites. Every day they see their liberties slipping away as washington grows more larger, more distant and more arrogant. As Thomas Jefferson warned, they are sending swarms of officers to harass our people. The poster child of jefferson is the cfpb. Its director, our witness is, neither elected nor accountable to the American People
One way or the other about that. But i do want to what i but i think getting to the point of your honors question, i think the problem the District Court confronted here, and i think the reason the District Court acted reasonably, despite the presence of the severability clause and the severability clause provides an instruction that that every provision, every clause, every word, every application, every individual should be severed. And the problem is the problem with the kind that the court noted, i think, in the ayotte case, for a court trying to apply that, the courts got to go in and decide which collection of the many, many requirements there ought to stand and which shouldnt, and its its going to be invading Justice Alito well, its all general verrilli the states regulatory problems. Justice alito its work, but maybe the District Court should have done that work. I mean, i read through this, and i was surprised. I read through these regulations. I was surprised by how many are
Assume if you promulgate a rule thats more protective of down seemers than a state has made that you deem that state to not be adequately protecting consumers. Mr. Corcray we wont seek to occupy by the field in that way. What we will do, if there is a federal intervention, and this is not determined, that will coexist with state regulation and authorities. Mr. Mulvaney lets be clear and honest. You do intend to preempt state aw in certain areas. Mr. Cordray i dont think we preempt state law. What will happen mr. Mulvaney in a letter of february 11, 2016, to my ffice. I asked about this particular issue. You said among the bureaus goals is to ensure consumers are offered certain minimal protections no matter where they are located. State laws that afford greater protection would not be preempted by a Bureau Regulation on small dollar lending. The obvious implication to anyone who speaks the english language is states who offer less protection will be preempted. Mr. Cordray what i would
Biggest cases, we have a stellar panel. [inaudible] and david cole, he is another law professor at georgetown. And the left side of the court the last time did a lot of winning. That happened only on the two mementos cases involving samesex marriage and the availability of subsidies on the federal health care exchange, but in almost every big case decided last term. Justice kennedy was the justice that usually joined this side of the court in those cases and the chief justice and even Justice Thomas occasionally have provided the victory. And with Justice Kennedy key vote in most cases. And the thing is how big will this be. And a fair number of big cases, the court is going to have a choice between broad and narrow grounds for decision. And this is determined by which path the court chooses to take in those cases and we have on our agenda 10 cases that they are likely to hear this term although we may not get to them all. And after they discuss each case, the press will be invited wit