A reflection under gerald ford and nixon under an American Society that said, these people can sit downstairs in the movie theater, they can register to vote, why are a majority of americans can support this. My general view is, affirmative action has been enhanced. Thats what i told the president. And he was pleased to know. That when you lose, what five to four . Eight to one . Seven to one . What it is all said that in the ninth hitting you lost great. Decision all persons having business for the honorable Supreme Court. Landmark cases, see spans special history series, produced in partnership with the National Constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 Historic Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the Court Welcome to landmark cases. Tonight, affirmative action, in 19 78th a Supreme Court issued the decision in this on what is called the bakke case the ucs affirmative Action Program was declared unconstitutional. The
The first case that we will argue stay is down from versus the usa. Mr. Chief justice, the subpoenas at issue here are unprecedented in every sense. No court hadcases, ever upheld the use of Congress Passed subpoena power. Had toittee of congress the records of a sitting president with a broad swath of the president s personal papers to the let alone purpose of the a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a set has attempted such a gambit. Because, grist has subpoena power, it is subordinate and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need. The committees consent is neither condition and that should decide this case. The committees contend the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has always applied to congressional subpoenas. But the arguments would render those limits meaningless. But the arguments would render those limits meaningless. They claim congress can you subpoenas
Briefing. Well bring it to you live from the white house as soon as it begins. We have a big show for you on making money. Charles folks the broad market trying to rally without the big growth names right now. Ive been pounding the table during these periods of socalled rotation. Dont get blinded by headlines or news that the market is down. Because these value names simply do not carry the broad market but they can make you a lot of money. I think it is critical for the overall rally to broaden out you need more winners. I will bring in two of the best right now and discuss where theyre investing. Fitzgerald group Keith Fitzgerald are and kingsview, Wealth Management cio, fox business contributor, scott martin. Scott, material names have been up. Industrial names have been up. Theyre very tiny fractions of the dow, s p, nasdaq so the overall market will not be up but there are big winners there. There are, charles. I like your call. Feels good to having the fangs go up every day like
Authority the da has under state law as to the president , the Second Circuit is wrong and should be reversed. If not reversed the decision weapon isis 2300 local das, overwhelming number of them elected to office and thereby accountable to local constituencies. The decision would allow any da to distract and interfere with a sitting president , subjects the president a local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and the grand jury can be utilized issue compulsory criminal process in the form of subpoenas targeting the president. This is not mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in this case with the subpoena we challenge. In the argument just concluded we asserted the subpoenas did not serve a legitimate legislative purpose and were burdensome. Yet the da copy almost verbatim the House Oversight Committee Subpoena with an additional 13 words which seek the president s tax returns without revealing the exact same language utilized by two congressional co
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