Justice and made please the court, the issues here are unprecedented in every sense. Before these cases, no court had ever upheld the courts use of subpoena powers to 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 meaningless but the arguments would render those limits meaningless. They claim congress can you subpoenas to uncover individual wrongdoing simply because that the always informed efficiency of existi
To President Trumps financial records. This is an hour and a half. The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States give their attention, god save the United States and this honorable court. The first case we will argue today is case 19715, donald trump versus masers usa. Mr. Strawbridge. May appease the court, the subpoenas here are unprecedented in every tenth before these cases no court upheld the use of congress subpoena power to demand the personal records of a sitting president , no kitty to committee had tried to tell of the personal papers, let alone to the purpose of considering potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a Congressional Committee has attested a gambit. It is long been understood since congress and subpoena power is applied, it is auxiliary ends subordinates, when that power is deployed against the president , and must yield any longstanding traditi
Kansas does not allow t last week justices heard oral argue ncase of a man convinthed of killing his wife, two teenage daughters, and motherinlaw. His attorney argued he had meantal disorder. The state Supreme Court upheld the verdict but Defense Attorneys apealed. The nations highest court will now decide the case. Well hear argument first this term in case number 186135, kahler versus kansas. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court. For centuries criminal pull pabblet has hinged on the capacity for moral judgment. To discern and choose between right and wrong. The insane lack that capacity. This understanding of insanity has persisted since the 1500s and remains the rule in 48 jurisdictions today. A kansas moral hypocrisy from the criminal law and the 14th and 8th amendment. Kansas rewrites history in two ways. By elevating the test one never used in this country and only rarely in england, and secondly by conflating common law intent which was a vicious will and bound up in moral
Ways. First by elevating the wild beast test when mother was never used in this country and only rarely in england. Secondly, complicating commonlaw intent which required admissions will and founder more capacity. What are the place today, a morality free modern manchurian. As such it uproots the deeply rooted but in eliminating any mechanism for moral judgment was intact over the tripoli compromise rate of Mental Illness. I would like to turn briefly to due process and explain what the more capacity notion is an noise has been fundamental in our system. The model is an excellent example. As criminal law evolves, the drafters move to more precise mental state, when they did that they retained the compelling mechanism to show intensity. We could do that the doctor said because we kept this, the narrow remnant of commonlaw criminality. This court recognized the presumption of sanity and sit evidence in this demonstrator continued need for the mechanism for the presumption of sanity even
Number 186135, kahler versus kansas. For centuries criminal culpability has hinged on the capacity for moral judgment, to discern and choose between right and wrong. The insane lack that capacity. This understanding of insanity has persisted since the 1500s and remains the rule in 48 jurisdictions. It runs afoul over the 14th and eighth amendment. Kansas rewrite history and two ways. First by elevating a test that was never used in this country and only rarely in england and secondly by conflating commonlaw intent which required a vicious will and bound up in moral capacity. What applies today . A morality free, kansas uproots the deeply rooted by eliminating any method to assess whether defendants capacity for moral judgment was intact or irretrievably compromised by Mental Illness. I would like to turn to do process and explain why the moral capacity notion is or has been fundamental in our system. The model penal code is an excellent example. Is criminal law eve all the drafters mov