mr. clement? >> mr. chief justice and may it lease the court. >> we'll hear argument this morning in consolidated cases number 13354, sebelius, secretary of health and human services v. hobby lobby stores, and 13356, conestoga wood specialties corporation v. sebelius. mr. clement? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, when a federal government agency compelled employers to provide something as religiously sensitive as contraception, it knew that free exercise in rfra claims would soon follow. in particular, the agency itself provided exemptions and accommodations for the religious exercise of a subset -- >> is your claim limited to sensitive materials like contraceptives or does it include items like blood transfusion, vaccines? for some religions, products ade of pork? is any claim under your theory that has a religious basis, could an employer preclude the use of those items as well? >> well, justice sotomayor, the first step in the analysis would be to ask whether or not there's a substan

mr. clement. general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the touchstone for resolving this case is the principle justice jackson articulated in prince v. massachusetts. as he said, "limitations which of necessity bound religious freedom begin to operate whenever activities begin to affect or collide with the liberties of others or of the public. adherence to that principle is what makes possible the harmonious functioning of a society like ours, in which people of every faith live and work side by side." >> that's a statement that is inconsistent with rfra, isn't it? the whole point of rfra is that congress wanted to provide exceptions for the religious views of particular -- including proprietors, individuals. >> no, mr. chief justice, i don't think so at all. in fact, the although i was of course, i was referring to justice jackson's words for their wisdom because it wasn't the opinion of the court. but see, jackson -- >> yeah. but the wisdom you cited is the idea that you don't have imposed, on

mr. clemente didn't know, the israelis were tracking it. they could have shot it down, but there have been so many, couple thousand of these rockets have been sent in the last 15 days into israel they could not afford to knock down one that is are not going to harm people or do damage, so they didn't take it doufpblet they knew where it was going -- take it down. they knew where it was going to hit. yet the obama administration decides to inflict even more damage on israel by harming them economically. we are lifting bans, we are working with iran, even though iran said they want to wipe out the little satan israel anti-great satan united states, they made it clear and they have never, ever ceased to pursue that dream of wiping out israel in the united states. e will give them some money, we'll let them get proceeds. when it comes to israel, we are going to slap them around like a little kid again. even though they had the sophisticated weaponry to knock down rockets and they let one go because it's not going to hurt anybody. this administr

mr. thomas and kathleen was here from the former small business commission and shell had a great impact on the clement street area several years ago wherever i lacking walk there i think of shell i want to be addressed to the memoriam. i have several items on june 19th to just a minute a better understanding of the awe depictions e definitions of the recycling centers on that meeting 80 on june 19th we heard from long term recircles and they raised concerns on the evictions of recycling centers in our grocery store parking lots and even though hearing hearing was spurred by the upcoming recycling centers at church and martha street and the abrupt announcement of the north beach recycling center since the closer of the 45ish9 from golden gate park 5 other recycling places where the northern half of san francisco at the safest way and the outer richmond it was a shock to me i'd been in close krablth contact with safest way and was very insured it was not going to close and it was clear by the testimony of the department of the environment state and nation that we will not be able to reach our vision zer

clemente. it seems to me, a all of the we've been dealing with, the internal revenue service, the fbi, the of daniel shore. the fabricated statement of what would happen if we hire mr. the fbi a consultant to of the white house, seems to me what we're saying here is all of these activities, they raise the specter of an american gulog in instance. and i think that when the chief executive of the country starts private citizens who criticize his policies or authorizes his subordinates to and i think the rattle of the chains that would ind up our constitutional freedoms can be heard and it's against this rattle that we and say no. i'll yield to the gentleman from california. comment with to respect to your theory that a mistrial is appropriate by contact to judge burns. judge burns was a participant in that contact. he doesn't agree with you. he didn't declare a mistrial. he should know, it was his case. quite the contrary, he didn't think anything was improper about it at all. you're entitled to your opinion, but the judge disagreed with you. time of the gentleman has expired. from texas, mr. brooks, is recognized. >> mr. chairman, there can be no satisfaction in imp