justice kagan: ok. next is someone -- you mentioned at the beginning of your remarks it takes about 20 seconds to , say. a math teacher who was told to begin every class with leading the shabbat? mr. rassbach: i don't think that is likely because -- justice kagan: a math teacher who was told to embody jewish values and infuse instruction with jewish value? mr. rassbach: if it is that alone, probably not, but depends -- justice kagan: i really am asking these things alone. a nurse at a catholic hospital, who prays with sick patients, and is told otherwise to attend to their religious needs? mr. rassbach: i think a nurse doing that kind of counseling and prayer may fall within the exception. justice kagan: may fall within it. ok. a press communication staff or who prepares press releases for religious institution of all kinds that they need? mr. rassbach: that should fall within it because it is communication -- that should fall within it because it is an exemption. justice kagan: ok, and outpatient who u

justice kagan? justice kagan: good morning. what struck me struck others, it seems there's a disconnect between the primary significance test and these kinds of names. the primary significance test is really asking -- does the consumer understand something as referring to a category of product, or instead as referring to a particular product or ?ervice these names by definition are unique and everyone knows they are unique. so, if you apply a primary significance test to these completely unique urls, aren't you going to get a bias in the results? isn't that true of the teflon survey? it's definitely true evidence generally, that you would seem to get a bias within the result and more things would seem to be registrable then really ought to be. >> great question, i think i can clarify this for you. just like the league company, with.com, that can be generic for producers. it's not just that you have to say the wig company. no one thinks the wig company is referring to wigs. a typed be generic for of company. it is not just the t

chief justice roberts: justice kagan? justice kagan: let me ask about those words. most of your argument is -- argument depends on a reading of those terms. usually, we think of those terms as involving some choice, but not necessarily. people are electors, people cast ballots at times when there is no choice. think of a soviet style system or think of somebody who has pledged himself to vote because another person is voting on other way. -- another way. why do these terms involve choice in the way you suggest? your honor, we believe, as the way chief justice roberts describes the , best way to understand these words, the best dictionary is the constitution itself. the constitution speaks of elector into context. article 1 speaks to what justice thomas referred to as congressional electors. we believe the freedom of congressional electors is exactly the freedom of presidential electors. we understand the authority of this court to establish that the office, as justice kennedy put it, the office of the elector, meaning the congressional elector, is created by the con

>> note justice kagan because i quibble is not with the pledges. and it is not with the idea of party control. the idea is the consorts with of the vote. it is with what a here removing in the letter predict who actually votes. he actually presented a vote. an attempt to vote in places that was rejected. that is novel. it has only happened in 2016. despite the party control of the selection process. >> what if i said if i think the best thing to do is to leave it to the states. to not impose any constitutional requirements on them . >> your honor, i would push against it because i don't think here in this case . >> with that it hypothetical. if i just not think that there is not enough. to provide an answer to the question and there are all the states knowing what colorado is doing. why not just leave it to them. >> because your honor, when justice kagan, when you sit there all of the states doing what colorado is doing, it will actually have never been the state what colorado is doing. that was 220 years of unbroken history. i think that speaks ve

to make another point. >> that was directed to justice kagan. justice kagan: i am done, thank you. just as gorsuch: -- justice -- if congress decided to do so, would we be here? mr. harrow: you would. there is no mechanism for mr. bacchus who asked for that vote, any mechanism other than making a phone call. justice gorsuch: i believe you are fighting my hypothetical. let's suppose he had asked congress and congress had agreed . would we be here? mr. harrow: if congress had counted his vote instead of the vote -- then no, perhaps not. lost thenot have office. he would not have had a chance to vote for vice president either. we would probably not be here. >> he did not try to ask congress to cast his vote, did he? mr. harrow: he did not. there is no mechanism for it and the state has not pointed to one. justice gorsuch: and the damages he seeks our six dollars, is that right? mr. harrow: it is even less, one dollar. justice gorsuch: one dollar nominal damages. why should we exercise our discretion to get the case when a nominal damages are one dollar, he didn't seek congress -- as y

justice kagan also pressed clinton v jones. says you are supposed to treat the present respect the fundamental claim of presidential immunity or the idea the president was different from another litigant was rejected in that case. i would like to know why these particular subpoenas don't place a burden on the president. it's the kind of thing the president ordinarily has to show in order to prevail in resisting subpoenas. so tell us about the response to justice kagan's question and why president believes clinton v jones does not preclude him from turning over a person -- over papers. >> as a factual matter, i don't think society will grind to a halt president trump has to comply with these subpoenas. that is certainly true. he has lots of advisors and free time. i don't think society will end if he has to comply. that is not the categorical, forward-looking approach the supreme court has used in these cases. if question is it -- is not any subpoena will burden this president. president trump will not be president forever. they

justice kagan: respect to these disruption questions, what role do you think that we play? >> cheryl is always in the room when the states and the tribes are negotiating agreements. scale on thumb on the the side of the state. and it comes to these agreements we have in place, those will continue. we have terrific working and if there were ever a situation where the nation were to assert sovereignty in a way that went beyond the bounds of those agreements, and if the state took umbrage, cheryl is the thatnal in the state's -- they can employ. what cheryl makes clear is that there is a distinction between reservation boundaries and whether they exist or not and what equitable defenses might apply to the assertion of tribal authority. : there has been a fair amount of discussion about the oklahoma enabling act and the suggestion that it is inconceivable that congress would have admitted any state to the union where a portion of the state would've been a federal reservation subject to the major crimes act. i'm not sure we have given you a fair chance to have that, so i would a

kagan? >> you have been talking about how to analyze these burdens in a case specific way. the burdens in terms of the terms of's time and in any possibility of harassment. the burdensome nature of these is categorical. i take that to mean that any subpoena interferes with the president's responsibilities or undermined the president and his handling of office. >> the fact is the court theessed this question president cannot be shield by everything. that is why it is up to a court to evaluate and protect a president depending on the circumstances. second, the claim of possible mental destruction is completely speculative. the back of the president might be distracted. it is not based on any article that the interference court was asking clinton to demonstrate. if that is the concern i, think it is wrong to think a categorical rule would provide comfort to a distractible president like that. for example, nobody suggests we should be barred from continuing to investigate the president's prior c

versus dialing it in i don't think that would elevate. >> thank you for noting justice kagan to suggest even a religious teacher could be a place to draw the line but also with a hosanna table our decision is unanimous in joining the decision during oral arguments preaching and teaching holding yourself out as the role to decide who gets that exemption so justice alito said i more comfortable if we jettison the administer role objections phrase why is is a religious autonomy teaching is central so has justice alito moving toward applying this religious autonomy more broadly in cases outside of schools involving the hobby lobby case with us antidiscrimination laws for those anti- scrupulous businesses but justice ginsburg said we were just about to drive out antidiscrimination laws. do you see justice alito going in that direction to say that? >> yes that's important. what is the backdrop we are in this moment where hospitals are merging and affiliating so the levels in the numbers of people working is only increasing. and then those that are bringing these defenses with theof expansion

i think justice kagan put her finger on it. regulation of a particular type of economic activity, debt collection. it's a regulation of what means can be used to engage in that sort of economic activity. as justice breyer pointed out, regulation of any can -- of an economic activity doesn't usually get heightened scrutiny under the first amendment. justices in justice kavanaugh was very straightforward about this, too, or nope of the idea that you have to look at what is said in the call to determine what the restriction is and that may mean that its content-based. that leads to the next question which is, in the jargon of lawyers, severability. it's become a theme in many cases that are coming up at the end of this term in the beginning of next. what happens when you have a law that otherwise is perfect he fine but it gets some small thatsion added to it arguably makes it constitutionally problematic. do you strike down the whole law or do you segregate out that piece? what was interesting in today's argument, the challengers

i think justice kagan put her finger on it. regulation of a particular type of economic activity, debt collection. it's a regulation of what means can be used to engage in that sort of economic activity. as justice breyer pointed out, regulation of any can -- of an economic activity doesn't usually get heightened scrutiny under the first amendment. justices in justice kavanaugh was very straightforward about this, too, or nope of the idea that you have to look at what is said in the call to determine what the restriction is and that may mean that its content-based. that leads to the next question which is, in the jargon of lawyers, severability. it's become a theme in many cases that are coming up at the end of this term in the beginning of next. what happens when you have a law that otherwise is perfect he fine but it gets some small thatsion added to it arguably makes it constitutionally problematic. do you strike down the whole law or do you segregate out that piece? what was interesting in today's argument, the challengers

. >> justice kagan. >> good morning. and the way to and for a categorical rule? semi not? and the way they would be registered is that correct? >> i don't know you me with trademarks of this kind. >> so booking.com and other places that combination does not add any. like the courts of appeals and with that interplay between the two words. that those could necessarily provide protection. and if that categorical position. and that the.com typically does not have that significance but it does not say never. and the pto examiner say. >> i don't think there is a difference. and with that category that the federal circuit in the ninth circuit have recognized. whatever respondent would do would say that this is the rare case and then go to have this evidence. >> in your brief you are not making the argument the people go around but instead say booking.com is generic and this is on page 44 of the brief because customers would understand to convey only that they provide online booking services with no additional meaning force those of other providers. so maybe or maybe not. so what

justice kagan: thank you. we havegorsuch: so, gone from the full-time religion teacher to the part-time religion teacher and of the line i am struggling with that you are drawing there is the teacher's less -- you were goingcher's to get us here in deciding what is an important enough person in a particular faith and how we avoid that difficulty. mr. fisher: justice gorsuch, let me talk about the part-time hypothetical into the importance in entanglement. on the part-time question, i may not fully understand your hypothetical, but i think that if the school said we have limited funds, teaching religion is important to us but we do not have the funds to hire a full-time religion teacher, we will just hire a part-time teacher. i think whatever answer you would give to the full-time religion teacher who taught only religion would also apply to the part-time teacher. if memberssuch: what of the congregation believed that all persons are ministers of the faith? maybe even bishops. and that they are all equally coul

justicestice roberts: kagan? justice kagan: let me ask about those words. argument is determined on certain words. usually, we think of those terms as involving some toys, but not necessarily. caste are electors, people at times whenlots there is no choice. hask of somebody who pledged himself to vote because another person is voting on other way. mr. lessig: the best way to understand these words, the best dictionary is the constitution itself. speaks oftution elector into context. toicle 1 speaks congressional electors. we believe the freedom of congressional electors is exactly the freedom of presidential electors. we understand the authority of this court to establish that the office, as justice kennedy put elector,ffice of the meaning the congressional elector, is created by the constitution and is free from constraint, either private or state. it is the same sense of elector that the constitution used. we meanics said, someone who has freedom and description, -- discretion, but by article 2, we mean what would be the soviet union description of electo

justice kagan. justice kagan: can we go back to what you started with, you said there's no right way to think of how to analyze this question that we could apply analysis to the automated call restriction or we could apply it to the exemption for government debt. i'm wondering whether you could say a little bit more about that because we have have to pick some way and on the one hand the restriction is the only thing the -- the automated call restriction is the only thing prohibiting speech but on the other hand the exemption is the only thing that creates the constitutional issue in this case. so which end of the statute should we look at? mr. stewart: let me preface my answer by pointing to a hypothetical noted in the respondents brief of what we think is a good illustration of when it would be able to focus on a an exemption. page 22 the respondents hypothesis a ban on all automated calls except to automated calls to a residential land line that endorsed the re-election of donald trump and that a

justice kagan was moved by that. if that is the line the court adopt, any teacher who teaches some religion or some religious values in a religious school would that mean a catholic school could fire any teacher for, say, complaining about child abuse in the church or being married in a same-sex marriage? essentially what all teachers and religious schools lose their protections? >> i think that is a possible outcome here if there isn't some actual analysis of the factors under hosanna-taboor. title doesn't mean the title has to say minister but as the women were hired, they were given employment benefits, had no reason to think they were spiritual leaders, they taught out of a workbook. of those are the teachers we are talking about across the country they should not be denied employment protection rights based on that. the harder question, for someone who teaches religion all day long in high school, even still as the discussion showed the question for me is, is that person teaching religion out of a workbook who c

and justin's kagan's point, that just makes extent is right. the state's argumentt is to partly based on the absence of language in the constitution. that the electors point, anything about combining the power of the state to that of conditions and as i said, this is been since the 1790s. this kind of part of our system. what you end up with here is a linguistic argument. the meaning of the word elect or and the absence of some more compelling suggest that the states are limited in what they can do. jeffrey: many things for all that rated david there was a case that came up often, called brave versus player. 1962 pretty state of alabama could require its electors to become public pledge to support the nominee of the democratic party's. on the grounds of the history was unclear it was not prevented from doing so pretty isn't distancing opinion by justice jackson with several of the justices mentioned and he basically defended the original understanding of the electoral college. he said, ventolin and finkel's orchestra can deny the plan originall

chief justice roberts: justice kagan? kagan: mr. wall, i would logo -- i would like to go back to your use of clinton v. jones because i had read that case differently. of course, clinton says you are supposed to treat the president's request with respect when the president says, like, i need a deposition scheduled at a different time, or can we have written interrogatories rather than a deposition. but the fundamental claim of presidential immunity or even presidential difference was rejected in that case. what i would like to know about your argument -- i have read your brief and the president's own brief, and at no place do you make a case as to why these particular subpoenas plays a particular burden on the president, such that he will be prevented from carrying out his constitutional responsibilities. that's what i took clinton v. jones to be saying. that's the kind of thing a president has to come in and show, a case specific argument about burden on the president. are you making that kind of argument at all? mr. wall: yes and

which are at the process they go to, which seems to imply discretion and free choice, and justice kagan pointed out, you can have a soviet style election where you go through the formality of voting in a sense, but that is not a real election. the strongest words on the other as mr. smith's brief pointed out well, are a point, that the states get to appoint electors and have very wide discretion. the question is, the way i would does the word swallow up the other words or are those words like elector themselves a limit on how much control the states have after they have been elected. jeffrey: you called our attention to article two, section one. each state shall appoint in such number of electors equal to the whole number of representatives, to which the state may be entitled in congress, but no senator or representative or person holding office of trust or profit under the united states shall be appointed elector. the second part of article two, section one, clause two, says, it came up in these and several asked why this has been exempted , the response was that was the people they di

justice kagan? justice kagan: general, what do you view as your best textual argument? gen. purcell: the best textual argument is that nothing in the constitution limits state authority over how to electors or whether states can those conditions and enforce them. appoint or whether states can impose conditions and enforce them. we think there is a direct grant of authority in the appointment power as this court has recognized, and waiting everythy by the time of the 12 amendments everyone understood they were being chosen in the states because they promised to support particular candidates, so the idea that when they use the word elector inherently it meant someone who could authorize the discussion. it just doesn't make sense that isn't how the term was being applied in the states that is and how they understood it and in fact the framers quite clearly intended to embrace the system as it had developed where they were pledging their votes and states were choosing to them on this basis. they said that very clearly that was the key point of the amendment. >> if i understand c

justice kagan? >> good morning, general. i would like to go to the chief justice's first question, which was about whether this role sweeps too broadly. i understand your concern about giving agencies some leeway so they don't have to think through thousands of accommodations in their head and then find the narrowest one possible for every person. but that is not really the situation we are in with respect to this. there was existing accommodation in place. some employers had objections to that accommodation. the little sisters and some others. even assuming those objections needed to be taken into account, the rule sweeps are more broadly than that and essentially scraps the existing accommodation even for employers who have no religious objection to it. and sorted by definition, doesn't that mean that the rule has gone too far? >> no, your honor, for two reasons. first of all, the accommodation is available. it is not been scrapped. secondly, including contraception, it does not cost employers anything. so there is no reas

. >> following up on justice kagan's point about the future, on page six of your supplemental letter brief, you say " it is likely civil litigation over the subpoenas would have been foreclosed at the committee issued them to the president." you say this case is different because specific subpoenas were issued to a third-party custodian and there is an implicit assumption that i want to make sure of, namely that absent a court order, the private custodians plan to comply with subpoenas even if the client directs or request them not to comply, is that correct? >> the recipients of these subpoenas have indicated they consider to be a dispute between the president and the house of representatives and absent some sort of court order regarding its validity, they feel obligated to comply. this court need to recognize that is just not reasonable to expect, in the situation, a third-party custodian to risk contempt of congress or other collateral consequences. there needs to be a vehicle to allow for review especially in this case where the presidents personal injury is at risk. >> thank, th

we had justice sotomayor and kagan seeming to believe that congressional oversight was important.in, we have this really odd situation where chief justice john roberts, who is the most stalwart observer of the court's institutional legacy is going to be in the hotseat trying to find a third way, carving out here some kind of balance between the two. >> melissa, thank you so much for making time tonight. >> thanks for having me. >>> next, my exclusive interview with former united states attorney general eric holder about the crisis of leadership in the white house and the doj. he joins me, next. the doj he joins me, next. since i don't have time to read, i mean i might as well listen. if i want to catch up on the news, or history, or learn what's going on in the world, i can download a book and listen to it. i listen to spanish lessons sometimes to and from work. yea, it makes me want to be better. audible reintroduced this whole world to me. it changes your perspective. it makes you a different person. see what listening to audible can do for you. trust toyota to be here for you.

. >> how are you okay with the existing role that i think justice kagan read before which is that there is no per se rule but how is it going to change pto practice and won't lead inevitably to the registration of every single common name of every business and then an expensive legal strike on whether it's become generic or not. >> i 100% agree with justice kagan, the view is the status quo which is the primary significance test and what the pto manual says and what the pto has been applying which is why our air appendix in the government appendix are consistent and shows the pto, day in day out rolling up his sleeves applying the significant test, you do not have to have a survey, the pto looks intensive evidence and says this is consumers that would see this as referring to any place on the internet the cells is good, you're not getting registered about the end of the story and that's why a lot of the marks ends up on the rejected list. on our list when they lead and whether.com they look to different evidence and said whether.com has a big consumer fan base and has a primary signific

. >> justice kagan? >> can i ask you to continue and you are talking about the consequences of this i know that there is concern about that. >> thank you, your honor. there's the rhetoric about the edits misplaced on the ground the state agency into the nation cooperate that will not change if the reservation boundaries are affirmed. they allow the state and the nation to continue sharing jurisdiction for the state courts to retain jurisdiction whether they are existing pigmented replacements or to ordain those placements there is simply no cause to think they will be disrupted and that isn't in the interest of the nation. >> with respect to all of these questions, what role do you thinkan our decision plays? >> cheryl is always in the room when the states and tribes are negotiating agreements in the agreements those will continue. we have turn affect working relationships and will continue to play that role. nowhere the nation were to assert sovereignty in a way that goes beyond the bounds of those agre

kagan: you've said that a number of times, and he made the point, that the president cannot be treated just like an ordinary citizen. it is also true and indeed a fundamental precept of the constitutional order that a president is not above the law. from our first days, chief justice marshall told thomas jefferson that he could be subpoenaed and required to and required to produce papers, and so i guess going back -- the president is like an ordinary citizen and that he is subject to law is to save the president can make these usual objections that a recipient can make about -- why isn't that the right way to do it? mr. sekulow: i think the case here is the perfect example. is the perfect example. here the district attorney copied verbatim -- for counsel, the president hiring counsel for each time he could be subpoenaed as a witness , who in this case as a target would raise a serious impact on the article to functions, so we think a categorical approach and we think it is submissive for care state process adds to targeting the documents in a criminal proceeding. it should be prohibite

. >> justice kagan. >> general, a couple of times and in response to justice breyer, you have explained why we should use the standard from the executive privilege cases by saying litigation about private conduct is also burdensome. but the point about executive privilege cases, it's not that it's burdensome, the colonel focal factor is the way the interest that a president has in communicating with advisors on official matters often about national security, often about military matters in the need for confidentiality and that, that is why the nixon standard was developed, not because of generalized ideas about burdensomeness which can be dealt with in other ways. so again, white show that standard be used here? >> respectfully, i think their parallel interest, executive privilege, your right is meant to protect the confidentiality of communications the article more generally is to protect the president from being unduly burden in his ability to carry out his responsibility and i think that is particularly necessary when you're talking about state court proceedings by the many, many 230

justice kagan gave a whole line of hypotheticals. and there was not a clear through line for the responses. mr. rosen: thank you so much for that. those were amazing hypotheticals. i am just calling them up. she wanted a yes or no answer on that. we deathly covered? probably not -- would that be covered? probably not. you mentioned a math teacher, takes 20 seconds. would that count? no. she just ran through them all. america'su're one of leading experts on free exercise clause. i take it from the discussions that they are arguing that this expanded ministerial exemption is located in the free exercise clause. response to justice breyer, who said that the ability to fire or do what people who perform ministerial functions is already covered by the religious freedom restoration act, or occupational qualifications, but to allow anyone who performs important religious functions at a religiously affiliated school to have an exemption from laws that prevent them from firing someone who has cancer or chemotherapy, as justice ginsburg pointe

let me play you a little bit of justin kagan, she and justice sotomayor and justin ginsburg seemed to be on one side of it. even just breyer was not with them on this, at least from what we could tell from the question. this is her question to the lawyers of the house committee about the subpoenas against the president. >> it seems to me what you're asking us to do is put a kind of ten ton weight on the scales between the president and congress. essentially to make it impossible for congress to perform oversight and carry out its functions where the president is concerned. >> clearly, that was justice kagan questioning the deputy solicitor general on behalf of the president's argument against the subpoena. it does look like at the very best they would send it back for a reargument that your house committees may not succeed in this effort to get the subpoenas. >> it's hard to tell off it from the argumentation which way they will go. when they get to the court we will find out if they're truly a conservative court or just becoming a partisan court. when you prepare, for example, the si

but i can use kagan. naughtiest the most this he'll. go in on. the come up so many of us of a 1000000. other vocal when i would. be also see wasn't there michael who. is with me see your example with your. own local companies you know if you. want to see make. noise you will not plant good models. and also numbers going up fast. my day one was going out of. the seals. we go to work you straight home. certainly a we are entering a completely new stage in holland to assess. not just the progress but needs to humankind i think we. already get past the peak of this willingness to be most global and most. progress in terms of developing development of technology we can do development of communication i don't think it can be stopped so. this control going to say this is going to addiction between safe life and old worse will share plans but it will not disappear. i know t. no crow. no shots. actually felt. well dr no those 12. points your thirst for action. max kaiser this is the kaiser report. what if i tell you that everything you thought you knew ab

jones: i was asking about you, not about elena kagan. i know her history. i was just trying to help out a little bit to try to establish that when you say you will be independent, your job to be independent will be harder here. my time is running out. i appreciate your being here and your willingness to serve, mr. miller, i really do. i hope you abu -- i hope you will be as tough and independent as you say and torture history says. i do want to get a question to miss wade. disappointing to see that your boss was not wearing the university mask. i want to ask you about the proposed rule for disparate impact that hud has now published. i am very concerned about that rule and how it is going to make it almost impossible to bring discrimination compliance. are you familiar with that rule and do you have an opinion about that rule? ms. wade: well, senator, i appreciate the question. i understand that secretary carson has already addressed this. my understanding is that the codifyof the rule is to the 2015 supreme court decision, however, this is not a rule that

but i can use kagan. naughtiest the most this he'll. come up. with of a 1000000 in a long while i'm at the local one i would. also see. example with your knowledge. but i think a. lot of companies you know need to because a lot. of what you're saying they call me that. noir you were not good models. and also number one up last is the only. one of the. most voters this is when you do compile these you. join me every thursday on the alec simon show and i'll be speaking to guest of the world of politics school business i'm show business i'll see you then. no shots. actually felt. no just. switch your thirst for action. 54 jets and more than 1300 military personnel are headed to heal some air force base in alaska where is that to say come on i'll show you what's the reason for any type of enhanced u.s. military presence in this area russia. what is it suddenly about the south china sea that makes it so that it 11000000000 barrels of oil. take a look at this map who really owns what kind of says no it belongs to us india says no we claim that that be

but i can use kagan. possible to posit not only has the most. going on. but they come up so many of us of a 1000000 little one while i'm at the local one i would. want another you know when . just 1000000 of us will see who's in a democrat who. is with you and we see your example with your knowledge. but i think i'm going to be an own local companies you know today because a lot of. the. work is in a call me that. noise you will not plant your models. and also numbers going up last is the only. that they must be. going out of most voters this is when you do get up on the heels. certainly we are entering a completely new stage in college to assess. not just the progress but needs to humankind i think we. all are a bit past the peak of this willingness to be most global and most. progress in terms of developing development of technologists we can do that album of communication i don't think it can be stopped so. this control of this is going to diction between the safe life and us will share but it will not disappear. problem drugs don't always come from un

maya, i played a little bit of justice kagan.ant to play something else, which we don't usually hear, and that's justice clarence thomas, both to reckon with that part of the case what those justices were saying and remind everyone we're in this pandemic era, and it has all sorts of odd outcomes. and justice thomas famously lawyers know but i think a lot of news viewers may know spent years without ever speaking on the bench at all. you get on a conference call and patiently he is a little more comfortable. here is something rare in the news. justice thomas discussing whether or not this could if trump loses this kind of records request could debilitate a president. take a look. >> at some point, there is a straw that breaks the camel's back. and it seems as though you're saying that we should look at these in isolation as opposed to in the aggregate. why wouldn't we look at all of them and look at the full effect and whether at some point it debilitates the president? >> maya? >> yeah, it was very interesting. thomas actively pa

but i can use kagan. naughtiest the most this he'll. going to. come up. with of a 1000000. other vocal when i would. be also see. it with 2 let me see your example with your. own local companies you know if you. want to see make. noise you will not plant your models. and also you know most will not pass is the only. name of the. my day one was going although most. of the seals. what if i tell you that everything he thought he knew about that movie the matrix. problem drugs has come from unscrupulous dealers but from pharmacies to in every state in the united states we've seen fairy sharp increase in the number of people seeking treatment for addiction to prescription opioids invited to america under the banner of medicine persisted with the pain but instead of trying to wean him off though she did. after dose after dose after dose and really became his drug dealer who's to blame patients doctors manufacturers. certainly. entering a new stage in. just the needs. i think we. all are a bit past the peak of this willingness to be most global and most. progress in terms of devel

but justices sotomayor and kagan seemed to suggest that the judicial branch should not try to define legitimate legislative purpose for the legislative branch of the federal government. >> i see a tremendous separation of powers problem when you're talking about placing a heightened standard on an investigation that a committee is embarking upon. >> what it seems to me you're asking us to do is put a kind of ten ton weight on the scales between the president and congress. and essentially to make it impossible for congress to perform oversight and carry out its functions where the president is concerned. >> in the second case that the court heard today, donald trump's lawyers were appealing two consecutive rulings by the federal district court in new york and the federal circuit court of appeals in new york, ordering the accounting firm to hand over president trump's personal and business tax returns to the manhattan district attorney in a criminal investigation. the circuit court of appeal's opinion, written by the chief judge robert katzman is so legally airtight, according to most

but i can use kagan. naughtiest the most this he'll. be honest i'm not. going to. come up. with of a 1000000 in a long while i'm at the local when i would. be also see who was in. it with to let me see your example with your. own local companies you know to because a lot. of what you're seeing they call me that. no i will not buy a good model. and also now most will not pass. the. my day one was going although most. of the seals. we go to work soon straight home. certainly a we are entering a completely new stage in holland to assess. just the progress but needs to humankind i think we. already get past the peak of this willingness to be most global and most open progress in terms of developing development of acknowledges they can do development of communication i don't think it can be stopped so. this control to say this is going to addiction between safe life and old worse will share plans but it will not disappear. problem drugs don't do is come from unscrupulous dealers but from pharmacies too in every state in the united states we've seen very sharp increase in the num

but justices sotomayor and kagan seemed to suggest that the judicial branch should not try to defineegitimate legislative purpose for the legislative branch of the federal government. >> in the second case that the court heard today, donald trump's lawyers were appealing two consecutive rulings by the federal district court in new york and the federal circuit court of appeals in new york, ordering the accounting firm to hand over president trump's personal and business tax returns to the manhattan district attorney in a criminal investigation. the circuit court of appeal's opinion, written by the chief judge, is so legally airtight, according to most constitutional experts, it left donald trump's lawyer, in this case jay sekulow, trying to invent a presidential immunity from subpoenas by any district attorney for any reason. jay sekulow agreed that the district attorneys and their grand juries could investigate a president's conduct. but he insisted that it would be unconstitutional for them to use their subpoena power against a president. chief justice john roberts had this reaction