5000 day of the Affordable Care even reate a choice, either adjust or pay the tax. In 2017, congress did not change sub a or b, it just reduce the amount of the tax of tax to zero. This still protects presents a choice, buy insurance and do nothing. That does not harm anyone or violate the constitution. Respondents insist that the 20 17th amendment to tear down the entire aca that rests on two untenable arguments, first respondents contend that congress transformed it into a command when it zeroed out the tax. That is contrary to this construction of the same tax, it is at odds at how congress and the president understood the amendments, and it would attribute to congress and intends to do exactly what this court said would be unconstitutional. Seconds, second, respondents argued that if this is unconstitutional, every other provision must also fall. The starting part of any remedial analysis would be the presumption in favor of severability, and here the text and statutory structure c
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
Carefully and pay a lot of attention to precedent. That is something professor barrett focused on a lot in her scholarship. She cares deeply about precedent and about the institution of the courts. I dont think she would be inclined to move the law very fast . Me a very david in some of the writings i have gotten a chance to look at, she has some skepticism about majority rule. She thinks when Congress Passes look at ithould because if it interferes potentially with individual rights. Tara that is right, but that in and of itself is a very commonly held view by a lot of individuals. Depending on who we are, we care about different rates, let all of us would like a federal judiciary to protect our individual rights from interference. Which things should be left to the political process. This apply to statutory rights as well as Constitutional Rights . We have the bill of rights to protect us. But when it comes to the statute that the congress has passed . Tara i think many members of th
The Supreme Court. It has been a highly successful series up until now. We expect to finish it this evening in a blaze of glory. So we are looking forward. I want to especially thank Justice Kagan for hosting us this evening. Without the support of the justices about report, we would be unable to host these events in such a gust surroundings. Because the justice has another event immediately after this one, i will give a brief or introduction then she deserves. But she has to make her way to a second event. Justice kagan has an enviable resume. You will hear a little bit about it now. She received her a b summa cum laude from princeton university. She then attended Worcester College at oxford as princeton s daniel em sex graduating fellow. She received a masters of philosophy there. She then earned aj d. From harvard law school, graduating magnet come allowed a, where she was supervising editor of the harvard law review. A Job Description that i assume she means they did the really har
There is no substitute for what happens in the classroom in those moments of looking over a kids shoulder, seeing what they are working on, being able to correct them. John Martha Maccallum away and in a moment. But the latest on San Francisco schools, hi, claudia. Hi, john. City officials have run out of patience saying the Board Of Education and the School District have failed to lay out a conference of plan to get kids back into classrooms as soon as possible. Thats a violation of state laws of the city is taking its own district to court. Its been nearly 11 months since students here in San Francisco, along with millions of others across the nation started learning remotely. While many other districts and even San Franciscos private schools have resumed in person classes, Public Schools here remain closed. Even though the citys own Health Department says they could reopen safely with proper precautions. The City Attorney says District Leadership needs to get its act together. Unfor