chief justice roberts: and justice jackson, i think you -- justice jackson: yes.out it because you are making . mitchell: mm-hmm.. justice jackson: and as i look at section iii, i see two parts of the first sentence of section iii. mr. mitchell: mm-hmm. jujackson: the first is a list of offices that a ualified person is barred specific circumstances that give rise to disqualifica so, first, am i about)6 seeing that there are two different happening in the first sentence? mr. mitchell: yes, for sure. justicn: okay. case or just one? are you arguing both that th fice of the presidency should barred offices -- one of the mr. mitchell: mm-hmm. justice jackson: -- and that the person -- a person who previtook the presidential oath is not subject to disqualification? mr. mitchell: we are arguing both, your honor. justice jackson: i don't see that in your brief. mr. mitchell: well -- justice jackson: i see a lot of focus on the second but not on the first. mr. mitchell: -- there is definitely more focus on the , and we acknowledge that we have a somewhat heavier l on the

justice jackson: okay. mr. katyal: and the same point you made in the first argument. coercion by itself is not illegal. the government coerces all the time, in plea negotiations, in bringing criminal charges, and the like. what makes it illegal is if you're retaliating against someone's speech, and it's that where the complaint falls apart. justice jackson: do you concede that in this case? that if she was coercing -- coercing them under these circumstances, it was retaliation? mr. katyal: well, no. justice jackson: okay. mr. katyal: so we think that it was an exercise of legitimate law enforcement. we think they're absolutely fine to bring a complaint that has some direct evidence that says, oh, no, she is -- actually, this is not a prosecution that would ordinarily be brought. this is, rather, a selective targeting of me. justice jackson: but that's at the summary judgment stage, right? mr. katyal: it could be done at 12(b)(6), as it was here, and, indeed, the selective enforcement claim was thrown out. and

i said, andrew jackson or anybody else, when you think of the fake things, nobody has been

at least two former employees of the henry jackson society have taken jobs at the israeli ministry of foreign affairs. senior investigator at the henry jackson society was once the israeli prime minister spokesperson, the israeli minister of defenses media advisor and the head of strategic war games in the israeli military's operations directorate. while in occupied palestine, muri spent time with president isaac and was gifted map of occupied palestine by israeli military personnel. he all but took up arms himself in the war on ghazza. this advocate for genocide will certainly find it hard to find support outside of the desire. entity. joining me in the studio as usual, is our resident expert david miller. david's an academic and a former professor at bristol university and is now a non-resident senior research fellow at the center of islam and global affairs at istanbul zaham university. he's also a co-director of the lobby in watch dog spinwatch and is a leading british scholarly critic of israel. our guest contributor today is jason kridland who joins us via skype. jason has acade

juice jackson: isn't that her motivation? understand, that sounds to me more like a retaliation ndf first amendment theory, as opposed to somethi tt's happening in bantam books, which is pressure inapplied to actualnties that themselves are speech distributors so that those entities are censori t spch as in their power because they are the kinds of things -- ey are book distributors or et te. these are insurance companies who are being pressured, and so it's at least attenuad in that sense, the impt speech, correct? mr. cole: so, if the govnmt were providing insurance, it had a contract with -- let's say it provid se sort of insurance to advocacy organizations, and it said we'll give insurance to some, but we're not going to give it to advocacy organizations that disagree with usnd that, for example, promote guns, that would ba clear violation of the first amendment. it would not be censorsh. it would not be suppression. but it would be a penalty imposed because of the viewpoint expressed byherganization. in this case, maria

justice jackson: mr. martinez, what -- what i'm stuck on is what seems to be an assumption in your argument that every question posed with respect to reting -- interpreting a statute is a legal one. i see chevron as doing the very important work of helping ur stay away from policymaking, and so i -- i'd like for youo rt of think of it through that lens and he munderstand why, if we do away with chevron's framework, ww't have a problem of courts actually maki aolicy decision. so justice kagan gave you a mb of examples, and i think the reas why those examples are hard or why they're ambiguous or whatever is because, at bottom, they're not asking ga questions; they're asking policy queson how is it that, you know, stationary source is tbe defined? that's not really a legal question. i mean, there coulbeeveral reasonable ways of interpreting that. and at the end of the day, i think the wai've been thinking about chevron is congress has given that picchoice to the agency. and my concern is that if we take ay m

chief justice roberts: justice jackson? justice jackson: justice kavanaugh picked up on what i think might be a critical listings in, and i'm trying to understand it. he said here we have a situation in which the government is not asking on a company that is itself in the business of speech, which is true. unlike bantam books, where it was. and so what i'm worried about is your position ultimately reducing to any time regulator enforces the law against an entity that does business with an advocacy organization, we have a first amendment violation. because it seemed like your answer to him was, well, what get this into the first amendment column, unlike other scenarios, is that the nra advocates for guns and it is an advocacy organization, and so action taken against it makes it a first amendment violation. even though the government was not coercing the speech itself in the same way as bantam books. so how do we avoid a world in which advocacy organizations are exempt from regulation? mr. cole: so we are definitely not aski

justice jackson: mr. martinez, what -- what i'm stuck on is what seems to be an assumption in your argument that every question posed with respect to interpreting -- interpreti atatute is a legal one. i see chevron as doing the very importt rk of helping courts stay away from policymaking, and so i --'d like for you to sort of think of it through that lens and help me understand why, if we do away with chevron's framework, we won't have a problem of courts actually making a policy decision. so justice kagan gave you a number of examples, d think the reason why those examples are hard or why they' aiguous or whatever is because, at bottom, the're not asking legal questions; they're asking pocy questions. how is it that, you know, stiory source is to be defined? that'noreally a legal question. i an, there could be several reasonable ways of interpreting th. think the way i've been thinking about chevron is congress has given that policy choice to the agency. and my concern is that if we take away something

then i started how andrew jackson's parrot squared and people love this stuff. people want to hear silly odd stuff. president lincoln, the tallest of all of presidents at six foot four, which pretty darn tall for back in the day, contrary to that shortest president was a president, james madison, who was four foot shorter than that. he was five foot four and 99 pounds. president lincoln. obviously in the ford theater. and he he actually predicted his death from a dream that it the night before ulysses grant was supposed to have been his guest that night who had bail at the last and on president lincoln's desk in the oval office night, he was assassinated was legislation to create the secret service, albeit not presidential protection, primarily for counterfeiting purposes, but i thought that was kind of ironic. he was also a world class wrestler and wrestled in than 300 matches, losing only one of them. someone told me that he is enshrined in the like the world wrestling hall fame, which i thought was interesting interesting. coincidentally, i want to show you s

jackson lee: save him from this isolation.ro tempore: the gentlelady's time haexpire ms. jackson lee: help mr. george get an education. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> madam for unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized forne minnk you, mad. mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the cherokee high school girls varsity basketball team. mr. edwards: for winning the north carolina high school athletic association's 1-a state championsh first time since 1996. the cherokee lady braves defeated their opponent by a dominating 42 points. making the final score, 74-32. the entire team contributed to a historic state championship wit& ■aery player on the cherokee roster making an appearance in the game. the lady braves showcased the very best high school i'm confir determination, leadership, and perseve

luckily for senator jackson, everything turned out okay. but listening to the 911 call leaves her shaken. my name is jamal. and, uh, i just, uh, stabbed my wife and said those police officers had their guns drawn because they expected somebody to come out with a gun. i think what ifs about all the different ways that this could have gone wrong, it really did terrify me. i mean, did it ever cross your mind after you got swatted? maybe i shouldn't do this anymore. it's not worth it. i know, uh, and i could see that happening to some legislators. when it starts affecting your family, you know, my three young kids that that can make you think twice for me. you know, i feel like the lord's called me to be here for a purpose and going to see that through. for matter of fact, i'm dan lieberman in atlanta next, based on matter of fact, the food and drug administration was established more than 100 years ago. so why is one of its basic duties land it in front of the supreme court? plus this world series winner skipped the ticker tape parade because

justice jackson: you concede that in this case? that if sh was coursing them under these circumstances it was reion? mr. katyal: no. we think it was an exercise of legitimate law enforcement. that has direct evidence. this is not a prosecution that would ordinarily be broug this is rather a selective targeting of me. justice jackson: that is a summdgment stage. the selective enrcent claimhere. was thrown out. state a claim, and you have toto plead d prove, that is the language, she said it four times in theecision. this complaint does not plead and prove that enforcemuld not be ordinarily done. what they have said in the complaint is we have some comparisons, the optomris association, e w york city bar offers insurance and i against they allege there are tenical violations. none of these folks are doing what the naa was -- what the nra was doing. >> you are shifting the burden to the all they nee know is show the desire to suppress speech was a motivati factor. thnot have to prove that burden in a regulatory action uld have been ta

support the city of jackson now that the city of jackson went through the extraordinary means of our administration, going to watch and securing direct funding to the city of jackson notably after president biden himself shared that he had concerns about the state of mississippi not providing money to the city of jackson and so representative or senator parker who has authored that legislation, said from the dais. now that we he have gotten this money, we need to consider taking over jackson well, they weren't with me in washington when i was advocating in front of senate appropriations staffers to get that money so it is a self-serving mission, i believe by those who are sponsoring this legislation, not to support the people of jackson but to take advantage of the resources that are now at hand any instances to pass contracts to their friends. and so are our central and sole concern will always be the health and safety of our water system and ensuring that we not only a dependable, but equitable water system. and we have to make sure that we can carry that mantra through to the end.

as the autumn wind turn raw detective jackson's investigation chased down every lead and got nowhere.trails. >> the holidays came and went. holidays for other people, not detective jackson, not chief roberts. >> it haunted me. >> and then a spring breeze dipped into the valley. it curled its warming fingers into secret corners and came out whispering a name. >> out of the blue a tip. it is the name the police know well. have cops found their killer? >> we go out and we find his girlfriend. she goes i always believe he could've done this. uld've done my name is oluseyi and some of my favorite moments throughout my life are watching sports with my dad. now, i work at comcast as part of the team that created our ai highlights technology, which uses ai to detect the major plays in a sports game. giving millions of fans, like my dad and me, new ways of catching up on their favorite sport. >> six months after the murder of amyjane brandhagen investigators finally caught a break. a county jail in may looking for a deal got word out to the cops. he claimed to know who kill amyjane. >> we have

justice jackson: i'm sorry. they said it could, but what we focused on was not whether that metal piece changed the way the trigger operated. maybe you are saying that's wrong, but what i am focused on is your argument seems to rest on the assumption that the function of the trigger is what the trigger does inside the gun. mr. mitchell: that is correct. justice jackson: why is it irrational, wrong, etc., to think of the function of the trigger as what it does to cause the weapon to automatically fire more than one shot? that's what we mean by function of the trigger, which is in the statute, automatically more than one shot. what we are saying is if one operation causes the trigger -- causes the function of the trigger to make the weapon automatically fire more than one shot, i don't understand why you're reading is preferable to that. wendy, understanding of a machine gun is that it is doing this sort of thing at the end of the day. mr. mitchell: it's because the trigger on the bump stock equipped rifle does no

>>hank you. >> justice jackson? >> i guess i'm still not clear as to why you believe there's only one meani ofunction of the trigger in this context. why ul't we read the word ncon of the trigger in this statute to mean the function of the trigger is to stt chemical reaction that leads to the expulsion of a pjeile? if i read function of the triggeinhat way, i think i come out to a different result than you are positing. help me understa w that couldn't be the function of the trigger. in other words, i know, i'm sorry, consi question. you seem to be saying that the ncon of the trigger and the only one that congress cared about atatters for the way this statute reads is the movement of the trigger. >> no, not necessarily the mome. >> ok, tell me. >> it's what the trigger does to cause the weapon to fire. >> ok. what the trigger does. >> it is more than just the moment. >> i'm saying what the trigger does, both in this case, in a bump sto ce, and in a machine gun case, is to start a emal reaction that leads to the expu

so now, how does maynard jackson tie into all of this? so maynard jackson. in 1967 to go back to dr. king, dr. king was many of us know here the co-founder of, the southern christian leadership conference, and it was headquartered in atlanta. the sclc had his annual meeting. and dr. king his last address was here in atlanta months before his assassination. and in that address, the black power has shaped dr. king and black power movement, essentially was afro self determinism with a different right and in effect, dr. king and dr. king said this. you say he was committed to racial reconciliation, was always committed a racial reconciliation. he always talked about the humanity of, all people. he was fully committed to that. but he said this, and i quote him directly, said, i believe integration. i'm fully committed to it. but it seems to be that across country, many of our white brothers and sisters don't want to live near us, move into the neighborhoods. we get. they either have white flight or we bombed. we get attacked. so this is what king said. he said, n

justice jackson?ice jackson: you are asked if the agency is infallible and i guess i am wondering if you think that the courts have specialized scientific knowledge y that has pharmaceuticals, you have concerns about judges parsing medical and scientific studies? ms. ellsworth: yes. i think we have significant concerns and there are two amicus briefs from the pharmaceutical industry that expands on why exactly that is so concerning for pharmaceutical companies who depend on fda's gold standard review process to approve their drugs and be able to sell their products in line with that considered judgment. justice jackson: can you say what they say? ms. ellsworth: i am happy to. i think the reality is and this decision allow is a good example of a. you have a district court that among other things relied on one study that was an analysis of anonymous blog posts. you have another set of studies that he relied on that were not in the administrative record and would not be because theisions. they have been

michael jackson. also david - their entire career? michael jackson.eer? michael- jackson. also david bowie. you are equal to them now.— jackson. also david bowie. you are equal to them now. what even? it's a bi niuht. equal to them now. what even? it's a big night- and — equal to them now. what even? it's a big night. and after— equal to them now. what even? it's a big night. and after having _ equal to them now. what even? it's a big night. and after having years - equal to them now. what even? it's a big night. and after having years of. big night. and after having years of your dreams being frustrated, they have come true, right? this your dreams being frustrated, they have come true, right?— your dreams being frustrated, they have come true, right? this has been the niuht have come true, right? this has been the night of — have come true, right? this has been the night of my _ have come true, right? this has been the night of my life. _ have come true, right? this has been the night of my life. this _ have come true, right? this has been the night

i think justice jackson is saying that let's spot you on all that with respect to your clients. normally in article 3, traditional equitable remedies, we say over and over provide a remedy sufficient to address the asserted injuries and go no further. we have before us a handful of individuals that asserted a conscious objection, and normally we would allow equitable relief to address them. recently, i think what justice jackson is eluding to, we have had one might call a rash of universal injunctions or vacationers, and it's what we call a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on any fda rule or government action. thoughts? >> yes, your honor, i think it's impractical tauable to raise a objection. section 705 grants the courts to issue relief, and when the parties before the court are nonregulated parties, the only avenue in which they can possibly get relief, and that's for, in this case, a state issue or in another case as a vacateture. >> why can't the court specific this relief runs to precisely the parties before the court, as opposed to looking to the -- to

i think with their first hit, i think michael jackson was ten years old. was thereabouts . so he didn't have a thereabouts. so he didn't have a normal childhood at all. and actually, i think because of that , because he was actually, i think because of that, because he was propelled into this very adult world, business world, it was a kind of reclaiming or he never really grew up. he was, emotionally immature, let's call it that way . and holding hands with these boys and everything , i don't see boys and everything, i don't see that doesn't mean you're a paedophile. lots of people do that. >> and my point has always been, kai, what kind of monster would go television and sit there go on television and sit there and say, with such glee and innocence that he likes sharing beds with children because, you know, he likes sleepovers and milk and cookies. i mean, he sounds like a kid himself, but what monster had what kind of monster who had sinister would on sinister intentions would go on tv ? tv and do that? >> are we to know? >> well, how are we to know? how

jackson: i thank you. madam speaker, thank you.hey have made. madam speaker, i am honored to introduce the congressional black caucus chairman, the honorable congressman steven horsford, from the great state of nevada. mr. horsford: i thank congressman jackson and mccormick and i thank all of the members who have come to honor the start of women's history month and today with my colleagues of the congressional black caucus to commemorate women's black history month and contributions that women and plaque women have made to our nation's during women's history month, we celebrate the generations of black month, courage, sacrifice and patriotism have moved our wrrld forward. black women have been hidden figures leading our figures through air as. from the civil rights movement to serving as a foundation for our community's success, bla women continue to push the needle. to the co-chairs, just this weekend we were in selma f 59th commemoration of blood sunday. and one of the people that we had the honor of hearing from was ms. king, wh

>> dusty jackson.he first lady but i'm going to go to first lady. >> you are wrong. >> generally 1979 andrew jackson's wife was rachel jackson. >> stop it. [laughter] >> isn't it funny? they sound like they are from a different era but rachel jackson and janet and brother michael and tito. [laughter] lesley harrison, is lesley harrison a penthouse pet or first lady for our ninth president, william henry harrison? lesley harrison. >> penthouse pet. >> you are correct. july of 1972, if you're wondering. william henry harrison's wife was anna harrison. i can see anna in the era, could you not? here we go, eliza johnson, penthouse pet or first lady of andrew johnson? eliza johnson, does it sound 1800s? >> i'm going to go first lady. >> jenny, she is correct. [applause] victoria lynn johnson, penthouse pests of the year, we are out of time, i did not just break that for my family. [laughter] jenny fail come out the winner of all. you won the jacket. [applause] the things i would do to get out of putting out

and that's not the end of jackson davis. after san antonio cut the lead to 4 in the fourth, chris paul settled this with a jumper. but my shot of the night, jackson davis, boom! little over a minute left! the that's a candidate for being posterrized on possibly the dunk of the year. warriors won it 112 to 102. >>> let's go to las vegas. west coast conference men's semis. st. mary's in white ended santa clara. hot shooting first half. alex dukus hit six threes in the half. put them up 8. second half, dukus, ran in and slammed it. scored 18 on 8 of 9 shooting. one day after his sister led usc to a pac-12 tournament title. 21st ranked gales win 79-65 and advance to tuesday's title game drawing the usf and gonzaga winner. dons led in the first half, but you have to finish them. the bulldogs from deep. the dons eliminated 89-77 so it's the zags and st. mary's for the west coast conference final for a third year in a row. >>> nfl. you can call him former 49er javon kinlaw. he reportedly signed a one-year deal with the jets on this

justice jackson: good morning.here is a significant mismatch in this case between the claimed injury and the remedy that is being sought. and that that might or should matter for standing purposes. i do not know that the doctrines caurthis. i guess i see it that the injuries that the respondents our conscience injury that they are being forcedrticipate in a medical procedure that they object to. and obvious commonsense remedy would be to provide them with an exemption that they not have to participate in this and you said several times that federal law alreadgis him that. so i guess then what they are asking for in this lawsuit is mo than that. they are saying because we object to having to be forced to participate inhiprocedure we are seeking an order preventing anyone from having access to these drugs at all. d guess i am trying to understand how they could possibly be entl to that given the injury they have alled?■ ms. prelogar: i agree and i think its levant to standi. there is a mismatch between the claimed in

justice jackson: i'soy.her that metal pcehanged the way the trigger operated yb's wrong, but what i am focused on is your argumentee to rest on the assumption that function of the trigger is what e trigger does inside the gun. mr. mitchell: that is correct. justice jackn: why is it irration, ong,tc., to think t function of the trigger as what it does to cause the weapon to automatically fire more than one shot? that's what we mean by functionn one sho ate are saying is if one operation causes the trigger -- causes the function of the trigger to make the weapon automatill fire more tn e shot, i don't understand why you're reading is efable to that. wendy, understanding of a machine gun is that it isb÷thisf the day. mr. mitchell: it's because the trigger on the bumstk equipped rifle does not cause the rifle to automatically fe more than one shot. you still have to have manual action by the shooter. in respoe every shot, the shooter has toonnue to thru t stock forward. justice jackson: tt a distinction. my othe

i think with their first hit, i think michael jackson was ten years old.t he was thereabouts . so he didn't have a thereabouts. so he didn't have a normal childhood at all. and actually, i think because of that , because he was actually, i think because of that, because he was propelled into this very adult world, business world, it was a kind of reclaiming or he never really grew up. he was, emotionally immature, let's call it that way . and holding hands with these boys and everything , i don't see boys and everything, i don't see that doesn't mean you're a paedophile. lots of people do that. >> and my point has always been, kai, what kind of monster would go television and sit there go on television and sit there and say, with such glee and innocence that he likes sharing beds with children because, you know, he likes sleepovers and milk and cookies. i mean, he sounds like a kid himself, but what monster had what kind of monster who had sinister would on sinister intentions would go on tv ? tv and do that? >> are we to know? >> well, how are we to know?

"honey, you see this article about andrew jackson?" "no, i can't read."er] "i can't read, either! why did we buy this newspaper?" let's move on, because not all the influential, powerful men in the world have been getting such easy questions this week. >> reporter: this morning a high profile deal between two unlikely partners imploding. after a confrontational interview between former cnn anchor, don lemon, and elon musk, turned tense during a taping of the new "the don lemon show," that was supposed to debut next week on musk's platform, "x." >> hate speech on the platform is up. do you believe that "x" and you have some responsibility to moderate hate speech on the platform. >> i don't have to answer these questions. >> -- the great replacement theory as it relates to jewish people, do you think -- >> i don't have to answer questions from reporters. don, the only reason i did this interview is because you're on the "x" platform and you asked for it. otherwise, i would not do this interview. >> reporter: hours later, lemon says he received a short text

justice jackson: good morning. i am worried that there is a significant mismatch in this case between the claimed injury and the remedy that is being soug and that that might or should matter for standing purp i do not know that the doctrines capture this. i guess i see it that the injuries that the respondents allege as you articulate them our conscience injury that they are forced to participate in a medical procedure that and so the obvious commonsense remedy would be to pvi them with an exemptio they do not have to participate in this procedure. and you said several times that federalaalready gives him th. so i guess then wh ty are asking for in this lawsuit is more than that. they are saying because we object to having to be forced to paicate in this procedure we are seeking an order preventin anyone from having access to these drugs at all. and i guess i am trying to understand how they could poib be entitled to that alleged?e injury they have ms. prelogar: i agree and i ink it is relevant to standing. there

>> her husband's sister. >> sherry jackson? really?than sherry hated sonia. nobody except for maybe dennis bordeaux. >>> coming up? who else might want sonia dead? the list was long. she certainly had a motive. >> her and about 100 other people. and can help you go up to 4 months between treatments. if you have an eye infection, eye pain or redness, or allergies to eylea hd, don't use. eye injections like eyla hd may cause eye infection, separation of the retina, or rare but severe swelling of blood vessels in the eye. an increase in eye pressure has been seen. there's an uncommon risk of heart attack or stroke associated with blood clots. the most common side effects were blurred vision, cataract, corneal injury, and eye floaters. and there's still so much to see. if you are on eylea or a similar type of treatment, ask your retina specialist about eylea hd today, for the potential for fewer injections. (luke) this will be a gold mine of local intel. just you wait. ask your retina specialist about eylea hd (marci) right. so, tell us ab