0
0.0
Mar 19, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN3
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
geral prelogar. oral argument of gen. prelogar: mr. chief justice, and may it pasthe court: the chevron framework is a bedrock principle of administrative law with deep roots in this court's jurisprudence. overruli arecedent is never a small matter, but overruling a predent as foundational as chevron should require a truly extraoiny justification, and petitioners don't have one. they say that article iii requir dnovo review of all statutory interpretation questions. but that's flatly inconsistent with precedent going back tohe marshall court and with the traditional limits on mandamus jurisdiction, which governed mo jicial review of executive action in the early republic. they've said that chevron violue process. but the applatn of deferential standards of review doesn't constitute impermissible bias. an contend that the apa requires de novo review. but that theory is inconsisten with the statute's history and the way it'be understood ever since its enactment, including in the more thcases in which this court has relied on chevron to s
geral prelogar. oral argument of gen. prelogar: mr. chief justice, and may it pasthe court: the chevron framework is a bedrock principle of administrative law with deep roots in this court's jurisprudence. overruli arecedent is never a small matter, but overruling a predent as foundational as chevron should require a truly extraoiny justification, and petitioners don't have one. they say that article iii requir dnovo review of all statutory interpretation questions. but that's flatly...
0
0.0
Mar 27, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
prelogar: i think the declarations are specific.even docto w regularly practice and submitted evidence and they e relatively short. this isja 150-200 cause there are only two who provide any infoatn about their specific the are dr. scope and francis. the others do not provide d ole their conscience. dr. francis is ja155 and theat. they object to ending the life inheomb. justice kagan: they do not object to providing whatever care is necessary to pson who mit ve complications from taking mifepristone, in other words supposed somebody has bled significant ineed a transfusion or any of a number ofther things that might happen, as you understand is not objection to that? ms. prelogar: i think the fairest reading is that they are not objecting to that. tres a broader conscious injury and there might be other doctors who have bader concern about providing care, and even if that injury had been in this dearation we think as a matter of law it could not demonstrate that they have a nonspeculative injury. in part because of all the things th
prelogar: i think the declarations are specific.even docto w regularly practice and submitted evidence and they e relatively short. this isja 150-200 cause there are only two who provide any infoatn about their specific the are dr. scope and francis. the others do not provide d ole their conscience. dr. francis is ja155 and theat. they object to ending the life inheomb. justice kagan: they do not object to providing whatever care is necessary to pson who mit ve complications from taking...
0
0.0
Mar 27, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
prelogar: in this case i think the sw was no.tice kavanaugh: is therep anody that could do that? let us start with the states that intervened. will you say that in that litigation fine, you can challengitnd let us get the meri othis issue and what the lawfulness of the fda did? ms. prelogar: the states lacked standing, they a aerting indirect injuries and could result in the states alway suing the united states government. justice kavanaugh: how about a doctor who opposes abortion,e is on duty when won who comes in with complications from taken mifepristone, anth doctor is the only one on duty who can attend to the woman's problem and as a result in order to save her life she has to abort the viable fet. with that doctor then have standing to seek injunctive relief? or would you say this is too speculative. this is like being struck by lightning and it is not sufficiently likely that ts will happen to this doctor again? ms. prelogar: atould represent past harm and we are not dispinthat conscious violation would be cognizable. we
prelogar: in this case i think the sw was no.tice kavanaugh: is therep anody that could do that? let us start with the states that intervened. will you say that in that litigation fine, you can challengitnd let us get the meri othis issue and what the lawfulness of the fda did? ms. prelogar: the states lacked standing, they a aerting indirect injuries and could result in the states alway suing the united states government. justice kavanaugh: how about a doctor who opposes abortion,e is on duty...
0
0.0
Mar 26, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
prelogar: i do not think it is. withes standings this court has said that the association needs to identify a specific member suffering a concrete harm and an injury that is nonspeculative. i do not take issue with that fact, they are agreeing it would be necessary to identify a specific doctor. the problem with the associational standing theory is that it rests on this chain of remote possibility with so many steps in the process that would have to occur laying one speculative remote odds of chance of injury across another to get to the ultimate rm on behalf of these doctors. >> y associate the remote nature and it affects the likelihood that these patients will go to the emergency room and so on. is there a number of which your argument would change, the significant number of consequences, higher likelihood of an emergency room visit, doctors who spend mortime in the emergency room, at some point does this analysis lead to the other result? ms. prelogar: it is hard to imagine that it code for region- reasons. i ta
prelogar: i do not think it is. withes standings this court has said that the association needs to identify a specific member suffering a concrete harm and an injury that is nonspeculative. i do not take issue with that fact, they are agreeing it would be necessary to identify a specific doctor. the problem with the associational standing theory is that it rests on this chain of remote possibility with so many steps in the process that would have to occur laying one speculative remote odds of...
0
0.0
Mar 27, 2024
03/24
by
CSPAN
tv
eye 0
favorite 0
quote 0
prelogar: it is hard tosp tong gn >> could you provide a morestthse s tss n n ndore nt a c nieen r mu us. justice alito: is there anybody fn' to rla standing but the court has saidhaat matter if i i is too bad that nobody can ser drug was producing safety inrv emsystsp iremain on the market, that is incorrect. >> you y teeprents and wehe court has identified ofg relief. >> i am assuming that if there were -- if this had been uns 'is bp s there is nothing like that here. justice soso they think that is the b to provide a standard of care. they are not directledn ur position that such doctors would have recourse for the cnt tctit duspithacnscagovernment's experience, almost wawt di so wfr st y it d co on rnose rgs k and listen to yourme an ind in a certain way, and those kindme amendment in its own bucket. the court has recognizch >> i think the way to approach -go ke -lyer fda actions in approvinge, an es would be more dangerous in combination than individagan edlyat co nde yoase otipevd e . the fda was not approving,en t f d sort of an explaib intht fjuey m'"aemergency room care visit
prelogar: it is hard tosp tong gn >> could you provide a morestthse s tss n n ndore nt a c nieen r mu us. justice alito: is there anybody fn' to rla standing but the court has saidhaat matter if i i is too bad that nobody can ser drug was producing safety inrv emsystsp iremain on the market, that is incorrect. >> you y teeprents and wehe court has identified ofg relief. >> i am assuming that if there were -- if this had been uns 'is bp s there is nothing like that here....