0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice kagan? stice kagan: mr. martinez, i want you to think of this from congress's perspective. so w thinking what is the next big piece of legislation the horizon and who knows, don't ve a crystal ball, but i'm going to say -- i'm going to ess that it's artificial intelligence. so let's imagine congress enacts an artificial inllence bill and it has all kinds of delegations, maybe it creates an agency for the purpose or maybe it uses existing agencies and it has all kinds of delegations to that agency or agencies about how to regulate artificial inlligence so that this nation can capture the -- the -th opportunities but also meet the challenges of that. and then, just by the nature of things and especially the nature of the subject, there are going to be all kinds of places where, although there's not an explit delegation, congress has in effect left a gap. it has created an ambiguity. and what congress is thinking is, do we wantous to fill that gap, or do we want an agency tfi that gap? when the normal technique
chief justice roberts: justice kagan? stice kagan: mr. martinez, i want you to think of this from congress's perspective. so w thinking what is the next big piece of legislation the horizon and who knows, don't ve a crystal ball, but i'm going to say -- i'm going to ess that it's artificial intelligence. so let's imagine congress enacts an artificial inllence bill and it has all kinds of delegations, maybe it creates an agency for the purpose or maybe it uses existing agencies and it has all...
0
0.0
Mar 18, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
stice kagan? >> can we go back to the standing question? piece of evidence, and maybe ■z is the piece that you were describing earlier. i want to make clear what your answer is. the single piece of evidence that most clearly shows that the government was responsible for one of your clients having material taken down. what is that evidence? and what does it say about how the government was responsible? mr. aguinaga: think jill hines t example on standing. >> even on that one, i didn't understand what you were saying, how you drew the link to the government. we know there's a lot of government encouragement around here. we also know that the platforms are actively content moderating, and they are doing■e thave of we government wants. so, how do you decide it is government action as opposed to platform action? mr. aguinaga: your honor, let me answer your question directly. the link i was drawing was a temp oral -- a temporal one. two months after the email, calls for targeting health groups like jill hines' she experiences the first example of
stice kagan? >> can we go back to the standing question? piece of evidence, and maybe ■z is the piece that you were describing earlier. i want to make clear what your answer is. the single piece of evidence that most clearly shows that the government was responsible for one of your clients having material taken down. what is that evidence? and what does it say about how the government was responsible? mr. aguinaga: think jill hines t example on standing. >> even on that one, i...
0
0.0
Mar 4, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: yeah, why don't we -- ste kagan: -- uld we -- stice kagan: is that okay if wewe go to that justice jackson: sure. sure, sure, sure justice kagan: you know, but -- justice jackson: gd. justice kagan: will there be an opportunity to do "officer" stuff, or we chief justice roberts: absolutely. absolutely. [laughter] justice kagan: i just want to understand. so, on -- on -- on this theo that the -- that section iii can be enforced, that -- that -- mr. mitchell: yeah. justicn: -- that somebody out there can say, yes, there has be a former president who engaged or led or participated in an insurrection and so should be disqualified from o argument --de the officer mr. mitchell: right. justice kagan: -- what is the mr. mitchell: so the answer to that question is going to depend on what your thinks of griffin's case. so, if this court were to affirm the rationale of griffin's ca henlleion that creates a remedy. so congress could reinstate the quo warranto provisions that they initially had in the 18-- justice kagan: is that your position? mr. mitchell: yes, because we
chief justice roberts: yeah, why don't we -- ste kagan: -- uld we -- stice kagan: is that okay if wewe go to that justice jackson: sure. sure, sure, sure justice kagan: you know, but -- justice jackson: gd. justice kagan: will there be an opportunity to do "officer" stuff, or we chief justice roberts: absolutely. absolutely. [laughter] justice kagan: i just want to understand. so, on -- on -- on this theo that the -- that section iii can be enforced, that -- that -- mr. mitchell:...
0
0.0
Mar 28, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chf stice roberts: justice kagan? justice gorsu? stice -- justice gorsuch: we've gone back and fthll morning about the standard. but you've got a first amendment taliation claim in this case. and we often look at retaliation in the title vii context iju the manner you described, the effectt uld have on a reasonable person in this circumstance. do you see any daylight really between those two standards? mr. cole: in terms of defining what constitutes -- justice gorsuch: yeah. mr. cole: --an adversacon? justice gorsuch: rit. i'm nosu that there is. i d't know that for this case one has to look very hard to see adverse action wheyo see a concerted campaign, million-dollar fines, an explicit threat to a major insurance provider, we're going to go hard on you if you don't cut your ties with the nra. inhat context, this is clearly an adverse action under title vii, under any english-language undersndg of adverse action. justice gorsuch: retaliation is faliar concept in --in a lot of our case law, is all i'm tryingo int. out here. and they
chf stice roberts: justice kagan? justice gorsu? stice -- justice gorsuch: we've gone back and fthll morning about the standard. but you've got a first amendment taliation claim in this case. and we often look at retaliation in the title vii context iju the manner you described, the effectt uld have on a reasonable person in this circumstance. do you see any daylight really between those two standards? mr. cole: in terms of defining what constitutes -- justice gorsuch: yeah. mr. cole: --an...
0
0.0
Mar 29, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
chief justice roberts: justice kagan? stice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: we've gone back and forth all moabout the standard. but you have a first amendment retaliation claim in this case, and we often look at retalia in the title vii context. just tter you described, the it would have on a reasonable person in the circumstances u see any daylight between those two standards? what constitutes adverse action? justice gorsuch: right. mr. cole: i'm not hat there is. i don't know that for th case one has to look very h see adverse action, when you see a concerted campa milling dollars- million-dollar fines, and explicit threat to a major insurance provider, we are going to go hard on you if you don't cut your ties with the nra . in that context this clearly an adverse action under vii, under any english-language understanding. justice gorsuch: retaliation is our case law.ncept in a lot of mr. cole: and i think, look justice gorsuch: they have gray-area cases, all of the mr. cole: bantam boo retaliation are slightly different in the way they con
chief justice roberts: justice kagan? stice gorsuch? justice gorsuch: we've gone back and forth all moabout the standard. but you have a first amendment retaliation claim in this case, and we often look at retalia in the title vii context. just tter you described, the it would have on a reasonable person in the circumstances u see any daylight between those two standards? what constitutes adverse action? justice gorsuch: right. mr. cole: i'm not hat there is. i don't know that for th case one...