We are thrilled to have the panel of four here including our author Charles Barber and instead of listening to me talk were going to getstarted. First up is ivan cusick. Is nice to be here in new haven. My name is ivan cusick. I want a criminal Justice Research agency. Well, unit for the state of connecticut. Thank you. I want a Small Research unit syndicated to understanding the criminal Justice Systemin the state of connecticut. I work for the office of policy and management and one of my responsibilities is to look hard at the present system and to reduce recidivism studies and other studies related to people coming out of connecticut presence over time. And ive been doing these studiesfor about 10 years for the state of connecticut. And one thing that ive kind of come to accept working in criminal justice is its an area which doesnt prepare people to see a lot of good news. Mostly the outcomes are generally not so good. So in terms of recidivism, for the threeyear period following
Whats being done to modernize the library of congress. We heard testimony from dr. Carla hayden, the librarian of congress. This is a little more than an hour. [inaudible] who also chairs the appropriated committee for library and i think thats particularly helpful that you could be here as well. Also a member of this committee so shes here as a of the committee but also on these topics, particularly fallible in her role as appropriate. We have been having with the library, with the smithsonian, with the architect of the capitol these kinds of oversight hearings to fulfill that responsibility and be sure were giving the agencies to help they need. Were glad to be here of course with the librarian, dr. Carla hayden, with mr. Barton, the chief Information Officer and your temple, the register of copyrights. Thank all of you for being here today. I think we want to talk primarily police i want to talk primarily about monetization. We had a chance with dr. Hayden at the last meeting to tal
Microphone. Ill speak louder, your honor. After the supplemental briefing it is clear that all parties this has jurisdiction and thats because the federal government is continuing enforcing the Affordable Care act until a Court Finally orders it not to do so. He legal harm from the courts below order and the participation of the states and house of representatives ensures that there will be an adversarial issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature your standing interveneors states, are you conceding the plaintiff states . No were not. You are in new orleans in the fifth telling us that the state of texas doesnt have standing to legitimate here, explain that. What is the distinction that licenses you to have a standing here. The judgment below would cost the defendant states hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds. The state plaintiffs rely on a series of standing that they have not proved up. They argue that the individual mandate, even
Yesterdays panel rolled that the health care individual mandate is unconstitutional. The here is the oral argument in its entirety. You may proceed. Thank your honor and may it please the court, i will be sharing my time with mr. Letter from the house of representatives and dividing rebuttal time. To start with the issues raised in the court in the supplemental briefing order, we think the states were clearly injured by the judgment below and are aiming to appeal it. Judge elrod you might want to move the microphone. Mr. Siegel after this up a, all parties agreed this court has appellate jurisdiction. That is because of the continuing enforcing of the Affordable Care act until the court orders not to do so. They now welcome it, and the participation of the states and house of representatives and ensure their will be an ensure there will be an adversarial presentation of the issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature of this appeal is that when ju
From the house of representatives and dividing rebuttal time. To start with the issues raised in the court in the supplemental briefing order, we think the states were clearly injured by the judgment below and are aiming to appeal it. Judge elrod you might want to move the microphone. Mr. Siegel after this up a, all parties agreed this court has appellate jurisdiction. That is because of the continuing enforcing of the Affordable Care act until the court orders not to do so. They now welcome it, and the participation of the states and house of representatives and ensure their will be an ensure there will be an adversarial presentation of the issues in this case. Turning to the other issues in this case, the central feature of this appeal is that when judge engelhardt when you say your standing, the interbeen the intervening states, are you conceding the standing of the plaintiff states . Mr. Siegel no, your honor. Judge engelhardt so you are here in new orleans, telling us that the sta