the goldfish is a metaphor for our economy caught in the grip of a capricious and cruel universe represented by a little girl, a ferocious fragility in the bar ren landscape of decay toying with life's duality as both critic and criminal, and i got all of that from her bangs. finally-- (applause) finally, in a thought-free and day-- denawment of cain on a grassy ledge overlooking the 18th hole of madness, of course that is just one interpretation. another could be that his campaign manager has switched what he is smoking. either way, folks, i was so inspired by cain's art attack or art-tacck adds that i chugged a bottle of robitussin, punched myself in the tiferp el with a porcelain cow creamer and made an avant-garde ad of my own about all the things we forgot we used to be mad about. jim? >> let's shatter some paradigm. >> this is the economy. this is the economy on regulations. this is contraception. this is the auto bailout. this is gay marriage. banjos, this is a mexican border. socialism, this is grandma, in a dystopian future. any questions! >> stephen: any questions! (cheers and appl

knox also capriciously recognized that no supportable bright line could be drawn allowing presidents to invoke the recess clause only during recesses if the president could make a recess appointment during this 18-day recess that was there. he could see no reason why such an appointment could not be made during any intra-session adjournment from thursday or friday to the following monday. only one president in the first 132 years of the republic, the em battled andrew johnson in 1867, thought to make a recess appointment during a senate adjournment. intra-session recess appointment. the next one occurred in 1921 when the knox opinion was abandoned by attorney general harry dougherty to allow president harding to make one during a 28-day adjournment. dougherty incorrectly relied on a 1905 senate opinion which vehemently criticized teddy roosevelt's appointment of 161 officers of a mili-second. because of knox's opinion in 1901, the only thing roosevelt could do was to do an inter-session recess appointment. he did that during the end of a special session in 1903 and the start of a --

happen, that it's governed by the aba and the person with the eyeglasses would say it's arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, and that's so even so the statute says it's in the discretion of the secretary. but if you're colleague and brother says, no, i'm wrong about the law there and moreover they would do it, that's what i'm hearing now. they would do it and they do do it and et cetera. so i'd like a little clarification. >> in the situation described in your hypothetical, justice breyer, i think the secretary of health and human services would never do it. but what i'm saying is with respect to the medicaid expansion -- >> could never do it or would never -- >> would never do it. >> it's your prediction. >> i think it w satisfy the administrative procedure act and that's a real constraint. what i don't feel able to do here is to say with respect to this medicaid expansion -- >> are you willing to acknowledge that the administrative procedure act is a limitation on the secretary's ability to cut off all the funds? she can't do it if that would be unreasonable? are you willing to accep

happen, that it's governed by the apa, and the person with the eyeglasses would say it's arbitrary, capricious abuse of discretion. and that's so, even though the statute says it's in the discretion of the secretary. but mr. -- your colleague and brother says no, i'm wrong about the law there, and, moreover, they would do it. that's what i'm hearing now, that they would do it, and they do do it, and -- and, etc. so i would like a little clarification. >> in the situation described in your hypothetical, justice breyer, i think it's -- the secretary of health and human services would never do it. but what i'm saying is, with respect to the medicaid expansion in this case - >> could never do it or would >> would never do it. >> it's your prediction, okay. >> well, and i think that it would have to satisfy the administrative procedure. think that's a real constraint. what i'm not -- what i don't feel able to do here is to say with respect to this medicaid expansion - >> are you willing to acknowledge that the administrative procedure act is a limitation on the secretary's ability to cut off all th

fortunate right about now which is not a bad attitude in the midst of such sudden and certainly capricious misfortune. >> i'm happy to be here. >> or to put it another way there is nothing like a near death experience to bring a neighborhood together. the good news, mike does have insurance. the house which was built in 1908 will be repaired. in sonoma county, wayne freedman, abc 7 news. >>> so as you can see, weather had quite an effect around the bay area. round one is winding down. now, on to round two of the rain. let's check in with spencer christian tracking it all for us. >> dan, let's take a look at live doppler 7 hdr. in the north bay just about over since the afternoon hours. around san rafael a little light rain and some moving into san francisco and light rain moving out of san francisco across the bay towards oakland and berkeley. in the santa cruz mountains it continues to rain, mainly light, some areas light to moderate rain near boulder creek and santa cruz. that is about all we have at the moment. the rainfall totals for the two days quite impressive. over 2.5 inches at cl

happen, that it's governed by the apa, and the person with the eyeglasses would say it's arbitrary, capricious abuse of discretion. and that's so, even though the statute says it's in the discretion of the secretary. but mr. -- your colleague and brother says no, i'm wrong about the law there, and, moreover, they would do it. that's what i'm hearing now, that they would do it, and they do do it, and -- and, etc. so i would like a little clarification. >> in the situation described in your hypothetical, justice breyer, i think it's -- the secretary of health and human services would never do it. but what i'm saying is, with respect to the medicaid expansion in this case - >> could never do it or would >> would never do it. >> it's your prediction, okay. >> well, and i think that it would have to satisfy the administrative procedure. think that's a real constraint. what i'm not -- what i don't feel able to do here is to say with respect to this medicaid expansion - >> are you willing to acknowledge that the administrative procedure act is a limitation on the secretary's ability to cut off all th

psychiatry can do anything he or she wants but rather they are limited to what is not artur come capricious and abuse of discretion in interpreting statutes and applying the statutes. in the of my argument, and of my question. respond else you wish. islamic i'm sure they shouldn't force states to depend on how a lower court reads holly hill. i think every we've right here what we know to an absolute certainty is that this statute gives the secretary the right to move all of the state funding under these programs. and if you think about what that is -- >> do you think that the federal government couldn't if it chose accomplish, the system doesn't work we are just simply going to recall what it's not consistent with what we want to accomplish. we are just going to do away with the system and start the new health care plan of some sort. and states, you can take the new plan, you can leave them, we are going to give out 20% less, maybe 20% more depending on what congress chooses. can congress do that? does it have to continue the old system because that is what the states are relying upon and i

s veto was, quote-unquote, unprecedented and acted in a manner that was, quote, arbitrary, capricious and not in accordance with the law. could there be a clearer sign that we've been subjected to a overreach of the executive power? this decision is a win for west virginia but we have a long way to go because the administration's so-called energy policies have led to higher gas prices and higher heating prices. we are blessed to have abundant natural resources in this country. particularly in my state of west virginia. but this becomes irrelevant if the administration holds these domestic resources hostage. all of the above means following the law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, many people are smiling about the argument in the supreme court on the affordable care act, obamacare. but i will tell you those children born with sickle cell and asthma are praying the affordable care act survives. those srs that fall in the dough mutt -- those senior citizens that fall in the doughnut hole ar

secretary can do anything that he or she wants, but, rather, they are limited to what is not arbitrary, capriciousand abuse of discretion, in interpreting statutes, in applying those statutes, et cetera. end of my argument, end of my question. respond as you wish. [laughter] >> well, justice breyer, i'm not sure that the court's federalism jurisprudence should force states to defend on how a lower court reads holy hill. i think that, really, right here, what we know to an absolute certainty is that this secretary -- this statute gives the secretary the right to remove all of the state's funding under these programs. and think about what that is, just - >> mr. clement, do you think that the federal government couldn't, if it chose, congress, say, the system doesn't work. we are just simply going to rehaul it. it's not consistent with how -- what we want to accomplish. we're just going to do away with the system and start a new health care plan of some sort. and, states, you can take the new plan, you can leave them. we are going to give out 20% less, maybe 20% more, depending on what congress choos