God save the United States and this honorable court. We will hear argument this morning in case 19 840, california versus texas and the consolidated case. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, this Court Construes section 5008 of the Affordable Care create choice. Either obtain the Health Insurance or pay the tax in 2017, in 72 congress did not change sub a or sub b. 5000 a still presents a choice. Either by insurance or do nothing. That provision does not harm anyone and it does not violate the constitution. Respondents insist the 2017 amendment requires the court to tear down the entire aca. [no audio] instruction of the same tax. It is at odds with how congress and the same president understood the amendment and would be understood to do exactly what this court said would be unconstitutional. Second, respondents argue that provision isgle unconstitutional, then every other provision must fall. The starting point of every remedial analysis would be the strong presumption in
Oracle has a copyright to the computer code, but not a patent. That means that the public, not oracle, has the right to these functions. Oracle cannot leverage its copyright to create pattonlike rights. Specifically, under the merger document there is no copyright protection for computer code that is the only way to perform those functions. Java Software Developers have the right to use certain commands to create applications for googles android smartphone platform. The commands require google to reuse an exact set of code from java se. Because there are no substitutes oracle is claiming the exclusive right to not merely what the declaration is saying, but what the declarations do. That is not a copyright, it is a patent right. Respect to fair use, the longstanding practice of reusing code is write the developers to millions of creative applications that are used by more than one billion people. Those policy questions are academic, the issue is not whether this court would find fair us
Supreme court. The justices remanded the case back to the lower courts for additional consideration, including separation of powers concerns. Oyea oyea oyea, all person having business before the United States court of a good morning. Good morning, your honor. May it please the court. In april of 2019 when the Oversight Committee issued this subpoena to mazars it had an extraordinarily broad view of its own investigative authority. According to the committee, the power to subpoena the president s personal papers was could he extensive with the power to legislate and did not have to give any reasons or explanation with what legislative goals its pursuing and had no duty to meaningful narrow or tailor its request. That view of its own authority is reflected in the subpoena which is drafted in incredibly broad terms and substantiated with little more than a sentence, a vague sentence in a memo about legislation. But the committees view of its own authority was rejected by the Supreme Cour
May it please the court. In april of 2019 when the Oversight Committee issued this subpoena to mazars it had an extraordinarily broad view of its own investigative authority. According to the committee, the power to subpoena the president s personal papers was could he extensive with the power to legislate and did not have to give any reasons or explanation with what legislative goals its pursuing and had no duty to meaningful narrow or tailor its request. That view of its own authority is reflected in the subpoena which is drafted in incredibly broad terms and substantiated with little more than a sentence, a vague sentence in a memo about legislation. But the committees view of its own authority was rejected by the Supreme Court in this case 90. The Court Announced a new test that substantially restricts congresss power to subpoena the personal papers. In response to that decision the complete did not withdraw, narrow or even reissue the subpoena. It instead attaches a 25,000 word me
All persons having business before the honorable the United States court of appeals for the District Of Columbia circuit are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. God save the United States in this honorable court. Case number 1954. Oversighttrump versus and reform of the u. S. House of representatives. Good morning. May it please the court. In april of 2019, when the Oversight Committee issued this subpoena, it had an extraordinarily broad view of its own investigative authority. According to the committee, the power of the subpoena subpoena the president s personal papers is coextensive with the power to legislate. Ordid not to give any reason legislation and it had no duty to tailor its request. That view of its own authority is reflected in the subpoena which is drafted an incredibly broad terms and is little more than a vague sentence in a memo about legislation. But the committees view of its own authority was rejected by the Supreme Cour