If there are no further questions, then i thank all of the witnesses for their testimony and their indulgence today and the committee stands adjourned. The house has approved republican legislation that would erase key components of president Barack Obamas Health Care Law and block federal payments to planned parenthood. The bill passed on a vote of 240189. Should it make it through congress, it does face a certain president ial veto. And House Speaker john boehner announced the appointments today to a panel to investigate planned parenthood that will consist of eight republicans and six democrats. Here are the republican members appointed. Chair Marsha Blackburn of tennessee, joe pitts of pennsylvania, diane black of tennessee, Larry Bucshon of indiana, sean duffy of wisconsin, andy harris of maryland, vicki hartsher of missouri and mia love of utah. Republican president ial candidate donald trump is on the campaign trail and stops in miami this evening. You can watch his comments liv
Off to the side, trying to pretend they are not happening, that is a career ending proposition for them. That is the first thing. The second thing is making the Justice System work in Holding People accountable so that their we should stop pleabargaining. We should stop lowering charges. If some of the evidence is clear and there is a conviction we should be drumming these offenders out of the service with dishonorable discharges as publicly as we possibly can. Should be making examples of them. One of the things that appears to be true although the data is a little bit squishy, back in the time of iraq when we had the surge and we had the army had to grow the force very quickly. And they were keeping people in a place, not stoploss, they were extending and pulling out all the stops. Part of what happened during that time was the army in particular granted an unprecedented number of waivers for people who had criminal convictions, Domestic Violence convictions, rape convictions. Some o
Said, im with hillary, she said, i am your hillary. She made that connection. She has a history in texas of being here. And people remember that. But we also have younger 33 of the latino vote in texas is between ages of 18 and 29. It done matter if theyre latino or any other race or ethnicity, that segment is the hardest and the leading indicator whether or not theyre going to vote. So it means reaching out and connecting in a cultural way, in a personal way, whether were at the hillary level or whether were at the i put the burden on all of us on the ballot putting campaigns and resources together to not overlook the latino vote. Ive been involved in so many campaigns where we only have so much money. Whats our target universe . 50 and over . Everybody else, youre on your own. So, its been a selffulfilling prophe prophecy. If latinos arent voting, we havent been asking them. We havent spent the resources on them. Perhaps you have to spend resources to reach out and we will be thought
The word between your formulation and petitioners formulation that says this is substantive because it did away with mandatory life imprisonment . Youre articulating it slightly different. Tell me what you see as the difference and why your articulation. Justice sotomayor. I dont think there is substantive day light between. Petitioners use and ours. It meant in treating it as a category. I think sums up the reality of what is happening. We broke it out into its Component Parts because i think it facilitates the analysis of it to understand that miller does have a procedural component. Sentencing courts must now consider the mitigating characteristics of age. But it also and more fundamentally, in our view, contains a substantive component that required a change in the law. Now, the change here was expanding the range of outcomes. Previously when this court has analyzed substantive changes in the law there have been changes that restricted the form of outcomes, say, for example, in Jus
,atters of the constitution and the federal hay be as statute only applies in federal court. The federal habeas corpus can grant if relief is warranted. Says pleasee acknowledge we are holding a prisoner in contradiction of federal law that used to do nothing about it, then the answer is federal habeas corpus . Theres not a second answer the state can be required under the supremacy clause under its own procedures to enforce the federal law . If i were to take that position, im not sure what would support me. Martinez versus ryan suggested there are advantages to citing the federal hay be us statute the hay be a rather than what the court called a freestanding constitutional plan. A major advantage here is if you say the state courts are bound by the constitution, when it would go to federal hay be us, there would be a very efrin shall review. If you say the redress question in state court is a matter of when the issue goes to federal hay be us, it would not apply because the state cou