Of their choice, including abortion, Voting Rights, the Affordable Care act, and religious liberty. [gavel banging] good morning, everyone. Welcome back. Judge, thank you. A good day yesterday. Your family did great. Cleanup well. You look good. The game plan for today is to do our first round of 30 minute questioning. Each senator will have 30 minutes to interact with judge barrett and then we will follow up with a second round of 20 minutes. We will not get it done today, but we should get through the first 30 minutes and then come back wednesday and finish up and then we will go about our business. I will make sure i stay within 30 minutes and if i can shorten it, i will. Let us get to it. You can start the clock. You can relax a bit, judge, and take your mask off. Yesterday, we had a lot of discussion about Affordable Health care. What i am going to try to do briefly this morning is demonstrate the difference between politics and judging. All of my colleagues on the other side had
Respondent acknowledges the context of criminal law, the terms encouraged and reduced can have solely asked that solicit unlawful activity. Thats the meaning they have in the context of this criminal law. There is no reason to reach out and give them a vastly more interpretation simply to strike the statute down. Unlawful activity have existed since before the founding, and are perfectly constitutional. Interpreting this lot to be unconstitutionally overbroad, would deviate from that tradition and directly contradict the canon of constitutional avoidance. Historical understanding and practice confirm that congress did not use these familiar predecessors to the statute have been on the books since the late 19th century and this provision has existed in its current form for decades. Have identified no actual instances where the statute has been applied to first amended activity or country documented instances of chilling speech. Happenstance, and it because the statute is not aimed at sp
Context of criminal law that can induce solely to acts that solicit or facilitate unlawful activity. Thats the meaning they have in the context of this criminal law. Theres no reason to reach out and give them a vastly more expansive interpretation simply to strike the statutes down. Soliciting unlawful activity have been elicited since the founding and are perfectly constitutional. It would be overbroad and directly contradict the cannon of constitutional avoidance. Historical standing and practice confirm congress didnt use these familiar criminal law terms to enact a novel broad band on speech. The statutes have been on the books since the late 19th century and existed in this current form for decades yet the respondent has listed no statute for activity or concrete documented instances of chilling speech. The absence of such evidence isnt just happenstance and doesnt just reflect longstanding executive selfrestraint. Because the statute isnt aimed at speech and certainly doesnt enc
Out and give them a vastly more interpretation simply to strike the statute down. Unlawful activity have existed since before the founding, and are perfectly constitutional. Interpreting this lot to be unconstitutionally overbroad, would deviate from that tradition and directly contradict the canon of constitutional avoidance. Historical understanding and practice confirm that congress did not use these familiar criminal law terms to enact a novel and broadband on speech. Predecessors to the statute have been on the books since the late 19th century, and this provision has existed and it substantially existed form for decades. Yet they have identified no actual instances in which the statute has been applied to protect the first moment activity or any concrete documented insistence of speech. The absence of such evidence is not just happenstance, and it doesnt just reflect longstanding executive selfrestraint. Its because the statute isnt aimed at speech and it certainly does not encom
Foundation and our partner, National Review institute, we welcome you to our sixth annual Supreme Court review program. We also want to welcome our theyrs on cspan, whether are watching live or in one of he many precast rebe rebroadcasts. Before i introduce our moderator, who is back by popular demand, i will give a very brief Supreme Court update. Last term, my colleagues won two more Supreme Court victories for our clients we directly represent. We were especially excited about our win last june in nick vs. Overruledship, which a terrible 30 year precedent which prevented Property Rights owners from suing in federal court when the state and local governments took their property. The Supreme Court record is now 12 wins out of 14. We will soon have five petitions for review before the Supreme Court, so we are hopeful we can extend that win for liberty in the near future. The format for todays program is as follows. After introductions, our distinguished Supreme Court advocates will dis