it's a gti and actually worth coming. >> we used to get so excited about the golf gtis, the originalnes, and now it looks a bit pedestrian, doesn't it. it doesn't have what? >> hubcaps. >> going back to the '90s i had the peugeot version, which i loved. it was a riddick us c i had a convertible gulf. >> you know you're giving away your passwords, naming all your old cars. annette, what was it? >> i had a gulf. it wasn't a gti because it was too fast. we called yours a strawberry basket. >> it was. it was an extraordinary car being a rugby car fitting five players in it. >> i had a south korean car, the kia. it was a cheap asian product to western markets. >> we're not past my test at 17. i was the worst driver. i nicked off my mother in her volvo. it was a mid-sized car. >> you say you flunked your driver's license. >> no, no, i passed my first time. i just was a crappy driver. not like you. >> it takes me back to the day we were driving around a car park together. >> i don't think we were racing. >> i think you still beat me. >> that's not true. you were wearing high heels, weren't

aguilar: the important thing is that we're gti we're putting these behind us.e funding government. i do think that this was the laddered approach, somethi the i buses that met that threshold. and then dewe d to do any delays. but we're exactly in the position we knew we were going to end up. we knew■[ democrats, senate democrats, senate republicans, and the white house weren't going to tolerate any significan you harmful cuts and crazy policy riders. it was only house republicans who insisted on moving forward. with those porities. and so we ended up in the same place that we thought we would. it's a lesson moving into f. 2 our republican colleagues can tune out the crazy and work with us on funding bills on time. and i think we've guinn the thas like. even in divided government. that we can meet the needs of the american people and that's what we should continue to strive■( reporter: there seems to be a split on the republican side about how much time they should have bfn■@efore e minis but, thy have that 72-hour rule. what do you think when you have a big bil

there is an eqll proud tradition of gti a preliminary injunction against a law ats killing speech. as the general pointed out, the party presentation rules have to be foundational. if we had gone into the district couransaid this is unconstitutional on its face and they said no it's t cause of gmail, we could've had a fair debate about that and modified our complaint of necessary. that's a diicult issue. the only court that deals with this directly said gmail is not a common carrier. we could have litigated all of that but the pintiff's burden is not to think of any theory to come up with an appeal and then foreclose it in district court.

show what happens when -- when courts are applying ts doctrine because they're -- they're essentially gti to a point where they don't really have to figure out the best answer and they can just -- you know, instead of asking what does the statute mean, they can ask a differenthshold question, which is, is this statute ambiguous enough that -- that we should just, you know, let the agency do the work for us? chief justice roberts:ha you. justice thomas? justice alito? justice alito: mr.arnez, would you agree that one of the reasons why chevron was originally so polawas concern that judges were allowing tirolicy views, consciously or unconsciously, to -- t--o influence their interpretation of the statutes in question? martinez: yes. justice alito: why was that fear unfounded? why do you think now that the fear was unfounded? martinez: well, i think three things. first of all, i think the fear has -- 's reasonable to think the fear has diminished over tim regardless of what it was then, in large part due toheery salutary developments in the way that this court and the lower courts gerly now

list that exempts big corporations and investment funds from transparency and accountability while gtieet investors. by weakening investor protections in various■áay will allow fraud to proliferate and retirees and mom and pop investors to be ripped■; off by bad actors. this bill will harm confidences in our in our capital markets not to assist our small businesses the bill purports to hill. as they lose confidence in our markets small businesses would see capital costs rise, not fall. so i want to debunk the notion that this bill somehow helps small businesses, because the truth is it will do just the the opposite. i'm very supportive of small businesses and i have worked extensively this congress with chairman mchenry in bipartisan ways that we can help smallbusi. we have worked together to strengthen crown funding and change the rules on■ investors. and there are several solutions that we have agreed on to increase capital formation without harming investors tore protection. we worked together to pass 13 bills last year that represent commonsense reforms that supports small business