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
Straight to the senior economics reporter for this. Steve, what are some of the reasons why we might not trust this data . I guess im starting off with a bias, because this seems like really good news when were just off a huge pandemic. I think a reason not to trust it is were in the middle of an historic economic shutdown and apparently on the upside of that shutdown and nobody has ever seen this kind of thing before we hadnt seen 20 Million People lose their jobs in a single month, and we really have no idea how the jobs would come back all of the other indicators we were looking at suggested there would be massive job losses. And it is well to put that into perspective. Remember the forecast was for minus 8. 3, came in 2. 5, so folks, you can do the math at home on both sides of the zero line it is nearly 11 million jobs is the number that the consensus was off by and wall street was off by it a bit too, if you dont mind my saying, they had a nice rally when they realized maybe we w
We will hear arguments first this morning case 189526 mcgirt versus oklahoma. Mr. Chief justice and may i please the court, this case is resolved by the fundamental proposition that decisions about sovereign rights are for congress to make an Congress Makes those decisions by the text. Learly and the decision must be reversed because the text makes clear Congress Never terminated the reservation and never transferred federal criminal jurisdiction to oklahoma. I have four basic points to make this morning. First, there was a reservation. The relevant treaties preserve the land to solemnly goin guarad to govern. The text of the treaties and statutes expressly identified the land of the reservation. Nothing more was needed. Second, congress did not establish, disestablish the reservation. In fact they considered a disestablishment and rejected it and initially sought the section yet instead only for the allotment. Then when congressional inaction would have dissolved, congress preserved t
Oyez oyez oyez all persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court argument first this morning, number matt, state mac, may it please the court, this the is revolves by decisions about sovereign rights are about congress to make an Congress Makes those decisions by speaking clearly with the decision below must be reversed because the text makes clear Congress Never terminated the creek reservation and never transferred federal your stiction to oklahoma. I have four basic points. First, the creek nation has the the texton, and expressly identifies the land as a reservation good nothing more was needed. Second congress did not disestablish that reservation. Congress considered the language that rejected it. Congress initially provided only for allotment, and then when congressional inaction wouldve dissolved the trib
Decisions about sovereign rights are about congress to make an Congress Makes those decisions by speaking clearly with the decision below must be reversed because the text makes clear Congress Never terminated the creek reservation and never transferred federal your stiction to oklahoma. I have four basic points. First, the creek nation has the the texton, and expressly identifies the land as a reservation good nothing more was needed. Second congress did not disestablish that reservation. Congress considered the language that rejected it. Congress initially provided only for allotment, and then when congressional inaction wouldve dissolved the tribe, congress preserved the tribe for all purposes authorized by law. The backdrop of existing authority that legislate over legislation land. Those should be respected. Third congress did not transfer terminal jurisdiction to oklahoma. Eight stated the major crimes act exclusive jurisdiction over enumerated crimes in a state of the United Sta