Mr. Chief justice, made please the court, it is an antihacking statute. Seatingprohibits the that succeeding access. It also covers not only outside but inside hackers. The government seeks to transform the prong into a different prohibition. It covers obtaining information by a computer that predecessor is not entitled under the circumstances to obtain. It is no overstatement to say this would brand most americans criminals on a daily basis. Scenarios are limitless. Imagine a secretary whose employee handbook says her emailers them account may be used only for business purposes, or a person using a dating site using false information to obtain information about a lossal mates, or student. If a government is right, any of these people commits a federal crime. Any employee that use the zoom account over the next giving to connect with relatives would be subject to federal prosecutors. The main argument is that a single two letter word in the definition under exceeds authorized access. T
Fulton versus city of philadelphia. Ms. Windham. Mr. Chief justice and may it please theourt, the court below made a simple error. They failed to understand where emplment division versus sth controls and where it doesnt. Ith doesnt control when the government uses the system of individualized exemptions. Orem when it makes other exceptions that underminets rules or when it changes the rules to phibit a religious practice. Philadelphia made all threefe those errors here and the city still cant identify a neutral genelly applicable law even ter six attempts and in our knowledge is its decisions are subjective and individualized. The courts belowtill apply to smith and even said smith would be a dea letter if petitioners prevailed a that demonstrates the confusion and instability smith has csed. Respondents rather than defendansmith asked the court for a newly minted nstitutional standard that is even less protective of religious exercise and that approa has no basis in the text, history
Of columbia circuit. A position he was appointed to a 1986 by president Ronald Reagan. He served as ahief judge of 2001 until 2008. In 1987, speing of judge ginsburg present ragan said he believes as i d that the proper role of the judiciary is to interpret the ross laws not make them. He bieves that inur democracy is for the elect representatives of the people to mak the laws. And the judges must never attempt to substitute their private will for t will of the people. You see, judge ginsburg remembers as i do the warning of james mattis the dissent for which theonstitution was accepted and ratied by the nati is not the guide to expounding a there can be no security for the faithful ercise of the powers. Judge ginsburgs got on to write many books for the cotitution. His newest book voices of our republic is a companion peace to his threepart a me elect perfect unit which shelso talks about this today. This is of our public features about the constitution personalities dignitaries and e
Stuffing and Everything Else going. Good morning emily and jason. Emily good Morning Griff and jason. Happy thanksgiving for you both. Im so thankful to be here filling in for ainsley and happy to be here with you two. We have a great morning in store for you. Jason this is fun. I love turkey day. I dont know if you think i delayed my start to turkey day. I have already had a little stuffing and the cranberries. I dont wait until 5 00 in the afternoon. You dont get a belly like mine by waiting for, you know, the starting bell. You sneak into the kitchen and grab what you can, especially at 2 15 in the morning my wife was just going to bed. I was just getting up and, you know,. Griff fair point, jason, i bought four pies for my family and at least one of them is half gone. I think you win that conversation. Send us your by the way, send us your what you are doing. Jason has already got things started. Emily, you have got to tell us what you have already done its friends foxnews. Com. We
This court construed section 5000 day of the Affordable Care even reate a choice, either adjust or pay the tax. In 2017, congress did not change sub a or b, it just reduce the amount of the tax of tax to zero. This still protects presents a choice, buy insurance and do nothing. That does not harm anyone or violate the constitution. Respondents insist that the 20 17th amendment to tear down the entire aca that rests on two untenable arguments, first respondents contend that congress transformed it into a command when it zeroed out the tax. That is contrary to this construction of the same tax, it is at odds at how congress and the president understood the amendments, and it would attribute to congress and intends to do exactly what this court said would be unconstitutional. Seconds, second, respondents argued that if this is unconstitutional, every other provision must also fall. The starting part of any remedial analysis would be the presumption in favor of severability, and here the t