lindstrom: staying together. may be multiple state interests, but the question here is whether it's a rational state interest to make it more likely that every child have both a mother and a father or whether it's at least a rational state interest to try to recognize that as a biological reality opposite sex couples can have , unplanned pregnancies where as same-sex couples can't. so extending marriage to opposite sex couples addresses that concern, to same-sex couples doesn't. it's a rational basis which is all that is necessary. there are other benefits for marriage, but the fact that that doesn't undermine its rational -- it is rational for the state to be promoting these marriages? judge cook: as everyone acknowledges, recent cases have not applied here rational basis review? we know that windsor, for example, placed the focus on difference in rational basis review. mr. lindstrom: well, windsor roemer and then windsor. roemer talks about conventional inquiry and talked about whether there is a desire to harm

general lindstrom: i don't believe either side has made that argument. justice scalia: has the agency made this obvious art meant? has the agency said we're going to take costs into account? general lindstrom: they did not. justice scalia: i don't think so. i never heard of this argument. i want to know a fact. did anyone on your side of the issue asked the agency to take costs into account brutally, roughly, crudely, or did they all say we want it cost-benefit analysis? i would like your characterization of the record on that point. because reading what they have said, it is about cost-benefit analysis . so that a media idea that maybe everyone interested in cost asked for a cost-benefit analysis. general lindstrom: i think the answer is that we asked them to consider costs. we thought it cost-benefit analysis is the ordinary way that a recent agency decision-making happened, not through some vague sense of what the costs are, by doing an analysis. their position is that we don't need to do that because costs are irrelevant. that is not something we hav

lindstrom, you have four minutes. mr. lindstrom: thank you. any sub categorization is going to happen has already occurred. we are talking about the role that has been promulgated and despite any sub categorization there's still $9.6 billion in costs. they are being imposed on a annual basis. justice sotomayor: it wasn't the question presented. is the question presented not that you have to take into account at listing, but somehow that ratio makes any emissions standards wrong. even if for some people, it's really not backbreaking to do it? lindstrom: the question is cost have to be considered. justice sotomayor: that is at the emissions standards. lindstrom: what happens under 7412c is you have a floor standard and and above the floor standard. you are taking out the categorization. justice sotomayor: do not establish the floor until they categorize. lindstrom: the steps armor. -- are merged. that is the language of the statute, it says it is such regulation appropriate or necessary. it is looking at what is actually going to happen. that is

lindstrom: windsor recognizes that it is not deeply rooted. this court has -- judge daughtrey: marriage was potentially criminal. does not make any difference at all russian mark then the supreme court told us that in fact, it should not be considered common all. that is where almost, i have heard people refer to it as a tsunami of action has occurred. it was back in that beginning of that time when we had the michigan marriage marriage amendment, was it not? i thought we cleared that up. mr. lindstrom: laurence was about due rights and published -- privacy. judge daughtrey: that condit could no longer be considered a crime and it could no longer jeopardize anyone engaged in that conduct with the prospect of going to prison. mr. lindstrom: this court has to look at the guidepost and the reason for that goes back to democracy in our system. how this is something -- we decide public policies and are owned -- on our own. it should not be to the courts. it seems particularly interesting here where does seem to be a particular trend that society is

and see lindstrom has the umlauts.lawmakers are happy to have debates about icon tract rules and whether or not they are allowed to drink water. and governors will drive across the states to add umlauts themselves. and a case that is more serious than that. and nobody is talking about it. that is the big story next. i win again. paul george the all-star. you still got it. play for the check? nope, with papa john's new payshare it already split the check for us. so, we wont be needing this anymore. introducing payshare powered by venmo. new at papa john's. share your bill on any mobile or online order. like our philly cheesesteak pizza, with original philly cheesesteak company steak. a large for just $12. better ingredients. better pizza. papajohns.com >>> in the '80s, the federal government intentionally crashed a airplane. this is not a conspiracy theory from a rand paul website. this actually happened and the plane was not a prototype, or on milt airplane. what they crashed on purpose was a full size commercial airli

lindstrom: that is correct. lawrence was about subsidy rights, privacy. it is not about -- >> it was about the fact that that conduct could no longer be considered a crime edit could no longer jeopardize someone engaged in that conduct with the prospect of going to prison. lindstrom: that is true but the court recognized in justice o'connor's conference, there is a difference between private conduct and public recognition. this court -- has to look at the guideposts in the reason goes back to this importance of democracy in our system. how the -- most basic right we have is the people. and we can do that by amending the constitution. it should not be up to the courts to take these of the hands of the people. it seems particularly interesting here where it does seem to be a particular trend that society is moving in. it recognizes that the victory is a truer victory and a place -- the courts decided it deprives people of an honest picture. this is an issue that has left the states and it is rational for the people who have continued to promote the idea tha

and see lindstrom has the umlauts. and the lawmakers are happy to have debates about icon tract rules and whether or not they are allowed to drink water. and governors will drive across the states to add umlauts themselves. and a case that is more serious than that. and nobody is talking about it. that is the big story next. ♪ ♪ when you're living with diabetes steady is exciting. only glucerna has carbsteady clinically proven to help minimize blood sugar spikes. i'm a bull rider make it part of your daily diabetes plan. so you stay steady ahead. i take these out... ...to put in dr. scholl's active series insoles. they help reduce wear and tear on my legs, becuase they have triple zone protection. ... and reduce shock by 40%. so i feel like i'm ready to take on anything. ♪ introducing the new can-am spyder f3. with a cruising riding position and the most advanced vehicle stability system in the industry... you'll ride with a feeling of complete freedom and confidence. visit your can-am spyder dealer and test drive one

aaron lindstrom: well, there are two answers to that.irst of all, the doctrinal developments language in hicks is that hicks also said that courts are supposed to follow the supreme court's decisions until it overrules that and subsequent to that, in rodriguez and the cases this court has also made this point, it's a decision that the supreme court wrestles on cases and overruled. so if the supreme courts override it, but i disagree on the doctrinal development point two. for example, roemer doesn't do anything to undermine the fundamental rights aspect of baker versus nelson. both questions were presented in baker versus nelson whether there was a due process right and also -- judge daugherty: you don't think lawrence overruling a case that came out just a few years before that indicates a doctrinal development? aaron linstrom: i think that shows a doctrinal development in the area of right to privacy. but i don't know that that necessarily shows doctrinal development in the fundamental right to marry which is public recognng, not a rig

so lindstrom, minnesota, regained its umlaut.rand new sign installed today. lawmakers are happy to have intense senate debates about eye contact rule and whether they're allowed to drink water. and governors will drive across the states to add umlauts themselves. right now in washington officials are finalizing rulges for something way, way serious than any of that. in that case nobody's talking about it and that's our big story next. sfx: clicking sounds so shiny. i know mommy but it's time to let the new kitchen get some sleep. if you want to choose wisely choose angie's list. you can get a finished project that you'll love. call, click or download the app for free today. the lightest or nothing. the smartest or nothing. the quietest or nothing. the sleekest... ...sexiest ...baddest ...safest, ...tightest, ...quickest, ...harshest... ...or nothing. at mercedes-benz we do things one way or we don't do them at all. the 2015 c-class. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial se

lindstrom, you have four minutes replang. >> thank you, mr. chief justice.orization that's going to happen has already occurred. we're talking about the rule that's been promulgated. there's still $9.6 billion in costs that are being imposed on an annual basis -- >> it wasn't the question presented. is the question presented, not that you have to take that into account at listing but that somehow that ratio makes any emission standards wrong? >> the question is whether -- >> even if for some people it's really not that breaking to do it. >> the question is whether costs have to be considered under n1 when you regulate electrical utilities. >> they do say it does when you regulate at the emission standard standard. >> what happens under 7412c is you got a listing decision first stage. then you've got a floor standard. then you've got an above the floor standard. >> that's not quite right. you're taking out the categorization. they don't establish the floor until they've categorized. >> categorization could happen here. my point is what happens under n1 these

lindstrom? >> mr.hief justice, may it please the court, the epa's view whether or not they can regulate, the text sets out two distinct terms and directs the epa whether or not it is appropriate to regulation and whether it is necessary to regulate. epa found it's necessary to regulate because of the existence of public health harms and to regulate for the reasons of public health harms. >> i'm not sure that is quite what epa said. my understanding of what epa said is that it is necessary because of public health harms and it is appropriate because there are technologies that can remedy those public health harms. so on the one hand, it said that the phrase went to the nature of the harms. the phrase necessary went to the nature of the harms. the phrase appropriate went to the existence of technologies. >> when they relied on the availability controls, they did that after having said we must find it is appropriate if the health hazard exists. so they already determined that the health hazard is a necess

lindstrom, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you mr. chief justice. any subcategorization that was going to happen has already occurred because we're talking about the rule that's been promulgated. and despite any subcategorization that happened there's still $9.6 billion in costs that are being imposed on annual basis -- >> it wasn't the question presented. is the question presented that -- not that you have to take that into account at listing but that somehow that ratio makes any emissions standards wrong? >> the question is whether -- >> even if for some people it's really not back-breaking to do it? >> the question is whether costs have to be considered under n-1 when you're regulating electric utilities -- >> they do say it does when you're regulating. the emissions standard. >> they say it's being done -- physical you think about this -- what happens under 7412-c is you've got a listing decision at the first stage, then you've got a floor standard, then you've gotten above the floor standard -- >> that's not -- you're taking out the categorizat

regulate which is exactly the same as what they said -- >> can you step back for a minute, general lindstrom. it seems like the quest for particular meanings attached to all of these adjectives. if we step back, that language is used all over the u.s. code and indeed in our constitution. as i understand what courts have done with that kind of language they have not insisted there be separate defined meanings for each of those words. when john marshall was doing this, he starts off with the word necessary and he says this is a phrase and we have to understand what the phrase as a whole means. and where shouldn't we similarly say that catching them in a redundancy, or super fluidity is an inappropriate clause. >> it recognized that something might be necessary, but not necessarily popular. >> we have we have separated out the two words and said it could be necessary but not proper, and that means it is not necessary. or useful to the federal government, and yet not proper. so i mean -- >> so why do you get to pick what it means? i thought that in our agency we repeatedly say if a term is ambig