Party chairmen of the i would find it i would be shocked if the court which is not a necessary and says it has to be total population in this case. They dont need to decide that to resolve this case. They can leave it open. If it becomes a problem they can reach it at some later time. Questions from the press. My question is for hashim. You kept saying voters and suggested [inaudible] arent asking for voters or are they asking for citizen voting age population . The cameras are asking that if you have questions come to the mic. Its not being picked up. Im sorry. I will mumble it now. You kept saying voters and suggested, for example, that prisons in rural areas would not be counted because they are felons. But are they asking for voters that are literally eligible to vote or of asking for citizen age voting population . Results are different. So the brief is a little come the plaintiffs a brief vessel agnostic about. As i read it there focus on eligible voters. There are a lot of diffe
Models for departments for the federal government are very organizational, departmentalspecific. When we talk about trying to understand and bring data together and consolidate, i know treasury is doing a great deal of work on this as well, trying to figure out how do you move the data between systems, but then how do you move the data not just between those systems but between the systems outside of the federal government. That becomes a cultural shift that has to happen. And its going to take a lot of buyin to make that work. But that will allow for i think a much Greater Movement of information and data across the government, which will make it more valuable for everyone. Actually just one more thing to add there. On the reretrieval side of things, theres two big things that prevent us from fully automating the work we do. One is, even if the data is available online, oftentimes you need to submit some sort of form or theres some sort of limit on how many rows of data can be downloa
But this court also recognized, for example, in justice oconnellers, applying the same analysis to marriage, theres a difference between private conduct and public recognition when you think about the fundamental right thats at issue. This court has to look at the guide post the Supreme Court has recognized. The reason for that goes back to the importance of democracy in our system. This is something where the most basic right we have as a people is to decide Public Policy questions on your own and we can do that by amending the constitution, but it shouldnt be up to the courts to take these out of the hands of people. And it seems particularly interesting here where there does seem to be a particular trend that the political that society is moving in. So, it may this is one of the points and one of the descents in windsor, but it recognizes that the victory that is earned through the political process a truer victory. And it deprives to the court deprives people an honest victory and
I am not a member of the nsa team and i do not apologize for that to anyone. Thank you for your time and i look forward to the question and answer. Over the next few hours or cspan 3, well look at federal cases in the National Supreme court. Up next, oral arguments from a lawsuit transmissioning michigans bang ban on gay marriages. After that, oral argument and American Civil Liberties union versus clapper on the National Security agencys collection of americans phone records. And the conversation on cameras and the court, and other issues of Supreme Court transparency, and later, a discussion on judicial independence. On monday, the Supreme Court decided not the hear michigan was not among those states so its ban on samesex marriage was not affected. Up next on cspan 3, the oral argument on michigans ban on gay marriage. Whether a District Court can disregard a directly namely baker versus nelson, and the bigger picture, its about what federal rights in the creation of a new federal c
May it please the court. For 50 years the Supreme Court has recognize that the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life are libertied protected by due process. April and jane have a constitutional right to share a life, to marry, to form a family, to raise their children. We show in this case that no matter what standard of scrutiny the court uses, no matter what doctrine the court applies, the state cant prevail here. The michigan marriage amendment is unconstitutional. A starting disagreement between the parties as the court has already observed, is an articulation of the right itself, its the right to marry i realize before windsor, the first and Second Circuit said that baker is binding, post wind sorry, theres no majority recognizing that, i have to say, i find that a very serious issue, the thing thats coming on is you, oddly enough, we treat some reversals as binding precedent no less than a fully written opinion. Everyone understands thats true, theres