mr. ginsburg probably worthy noting our efforts of promoting bio diversity and that's all part of the natural areas program. >> seeing no other comments thank you very much. >> okay. this is item 14 which the general public comment continued item 4 continued please come forward and that this will be items on no items on the agenda today. okay >> is there anyone else this is next is closed session convention is legal council. seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners you need to vote on who to hold closed session to confer with legal council with anticipated litigation >> moved and seconded all in favor, say i. >> we're now in closed session i need to ask all staff members of the public to leave so we can go into closed session. >> okay. we are now back in open session so commissioners you do need to vote whether to disclose any or all topics. >> like to make a motion not to disclose and all all in favor, say i. so move forward. >> are there any commissioners matters any any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed 17 new business agenda setting any any public comment?

mr. clement as justice ginsburg said, this was a very uncontroversial law. your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire u.s. code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard. so another employer comes in and that employer says, i have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, i have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. >> well, i don't say that. i think congress said that. but to be as responsive as i can to your question, the parade of horribles that the government offers you ought to sound familiar, because if you look at that parade of horribles social security, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination every item on that list was included in justice scalia's opinion for the court in smith. and justice o'connor responded to that in her separate opinion and she said, look, you've got to trust the courts; just because free exercise claims are

mr. clement as justice ginsburg said, this was a very uncontroversial law. your understanding of this law, your interpretation of it, would essentially subject the entire u.s. code to the highest test in constitutional law, to a compelling interest standard. so another employer comes in and that employer says, i have a religious objection to sex discrimination laws; and then another employer comes in, i have a religious objection to minimum wage laws; and then another, family leave; and then another, child labor laws. and all of that is subject to the exact same test which you say is this unbelievably high test, the compelling interest standard with the least restrictive alternative. >> well, i don't say that. i think congress said that. but to be as responsive as i can to your question, the parade of horribles that the government offers you ought to sound familiar, because if you look at that parade of horribles social security, minimum wage, discrimination laws, compelled vaccination every item on that list was included in justice scalia's opinion for the

ginsburg. the trial court ruled it would not accept evidence as to prongs' 2 and 3 but it did all of mr. hall's lawyers to make a proper, pursuant to the state's agreement that there could be a proper, and some expeditious manner, that is 158, one of the two grounds that we appealed to the florida supreme court on in addition to the hard caught off at 70 was the fact that in fact an expeditious proper did not in fact permit us to put on all of our evidence about prongs 2 and 3 and the florida supreme court on page 125 of the joint appendix said we don't need to consider that question because we uphold the rule in charity. >> what do we do about the retrospective proof? a simple question. how does the defendant adapt a on -- testing that, i don't know why i didn't do it. but he had in fact done it. >> you are correct. part of the expeditious proffer was limited to the testimony of i believe actually only one of the experts who examined him and did the add active testing function and that expert did say he didn't test in prison. there is again a universal professional consensus that adapti

ginsburg. now the state crile -- trial court ruled that it would not accept evidence as to prong's two and three but it did allow mr. hall's lawyers to make a proffer pursuant to the states agreement that there could be a proffer in some expeditious manner and that is joint appendix 158. one of the two grounds that we appealed to the florida supreme court on in addition to the hard cut off at 70 was the fact that in fact an expeditious proffer did not in fact permit us to put on all of our evidence about prongs two and three and the florida supreme court and this is page 125 of the joint appendix said we don't even consider that question because we uphold the rule in cherry. >> that limited view to the retrospective ,-com,-com ma the trial judge asked a simple question. how did the defendant adapt in prison? one expert as saying i didn't test for that. i don't know why i didn't do it in the same expert said he had in fact done it in other cases. >> you are correct. part of the expeditious proffer, the expeditious proffer was limited to the testimony of a belief actually only one of the experts who examined them int

ginsburg. the state trial board ruled that it would not accept evidence as to promise to end three, but it did allow mr. hall's lawyers to make a proper pursuant to the state's agreement that there could be a proffers in some expeditious manner. and that is a joint of one 5/8. one of the two grounds that we appeal to the florida supreme court on an addition to the heart kovrov and 70 was the fact that in fact an expeditious proffered did not in fact permit us to put on all of our evidence about prior to entering. and the florida supreme court -- and this is page 125 said we don't need to consider that question because we upholder rule. >> the retrospective. the simple question, how does the defendant adapt and present. in fact saying at did not test to that. i don't know why i did not do it . >> you are correct. part of the expeditious proffer was limited to the testimony of one of the experts who examined him and did the adaptive testing function. and that expert did say that he did not test in prison. now, there is, again, a universal professional consensus that adaptive functioning is tested by an a

ginsburg. the state trial court ruled it would not accept evidence as to prongs to good and three but it did allow mr. hall's lawyers to make a proper pursuant to the state -- up to the state's agreement that there could be a proper in some expeditious manner. one of the grounds we appealed to the florida supreme court on in addition to the hard cutoff of 70, was the fact that in fact an expeditious proffer did not permit toss put on all our evidence about prongs two and three, and the florida supreme court -- page 125 of the joint appendix -- said we don't need to consider that question because we uphold the rule in cherry. >> but there's nothing that limited you to the retrospective proof, and the simple question, how did -- one expert was sayingings i didn't test for that. i don't know why i didn't do it. and that -- >> you're correct. part of the expedition profferer was limited to the testimony of two of -- i believe actually only one of the experts who examined him and did the adaptive testing function, and that expert did say that he didn't test in prison. now, as both -- there is, again, univ

ginsburg. now the state crile -- trial court ruled that it would not accept evidence as to prong's two and three but it did allow mr. hall's lawyers to make a proffer pursuant to the states agreement that there could be a proffer in some expeditious manner and that is joint appendix 158. one of the two grounds that we appealed to the florida supreme court on in addition to the hard cut off at 70 was the fact that in fact an expeditious proffer did not in fact permit us to put on all of our evidence about prongs two and three and the florida supreme court and this is page 125 of the joint appendix said we don't even consider that question because we uphold the rule in cherry. >> that limited view to the retrospective ,-com,-com ma the trial judge asked a simple question. how did the defendant adapt in prison? one expert as saying i didn't test for that. i don't know why i didn't do it in the same expert said he had in fact done it in other cases. >> you are correct. part of the expeditious proffer, the expeditious proffer was limited to the testimony of a belief actually only one of the experts who examined them int