our petitioners on question 2 are already married. we know from windsor, because the court held, that once married, a couple has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in their marriage. we also know from windsor that where a sovereign disregards that marriage in a way that would be extraordinary and out of character with tradition, that that requires, at the very least, careful consideration. justice roberts: it certainly - it certainly undermines the state interest that we would assuming arguendo, have recognized in the first case, to say that they must welcome in their borders people who have been married elsewhere. it'd simply be a matter of time until they would, in effect, be recognizing that within the state. because we live in a very mobile society, and people move all the time. in other words, it would kind of it one state would basically set the policy for the entire nation. mr. hallward-driemeier: well, of coarse, there would be many fewer such couples raising children within their borders than heterosexual couples w

this does not effect the petitioners. it applies to all producers. petitioners are correct. since 1949 every year there has been a reserve requirement every producer has had a per se taking. >> i largely agree with what the chief justice said, just the way i think about the program is that this does seem a weird historical anomaly. am i right that all of the rest of these agricultural programs are done differently such that saying that this was a taking would not effect other agricultural programs? and also are there any other programs out there, forget agricultural programs but are there other programs that we should be concerned about if we were to think about this as a taking? >> well with respect to agricultural programs i think there are eight or ten other programs that have reserve provisions in them. i think most of those are not active in the sense that there is currently reserve just like this one is not. if this one has outlived usefulness the program is working exactly like it should. the committee which is responsible has decided not to impose a reserve requireme

in these cases, the petitioners directly opposed their master's wishes. they petitioned the court to override those wishes because for some time in the course of western migration, that person had lived on free soil. these cases were truly transformational. most slaves were brought west by floating with the current down the ohio river. the northern shore was free. and missouri's longest border was with a free state -- illinois. this border had to be passed by or through in getting west. st. louis was as a marketplace for the west. st. louis was the end depot for most westward immigrants. it was the place to change steamboats whether you are going north, south, or whether you are going further west on the missouri river. and disputes brewing elsewhere were funneled into the st. louis court by gravitating to the transportation hub. a steady stream of petitioners satisfy the criteria for freedom by having lived on free soil before arriving in st. louis in a slave state. st. louis was the natural cashman area for slaves who had experienced a mixed pattern of

this does not distinctly affect the petitioners. if petitioners are correct since 1949, every year there has been a reserve requirement every producer has had a per se taking. >> i largely agree with what the chief justice said just the way i think about this program is that this does seem a weird historical anomaly. am i right that all the rest of these agricultural programs are done definitely? such that saying that this was a taking was not effect other agricultural programs and also, are there any other programs out there, forget agricultural programs but are there any other programs out there that we should be concerned about if we were to think about this as a take? >> well, i -- with respect to agricultural programs there are eight or ten other programs that have reserve provisions in them. i think most of those are not active in the sense that there is currently reserve. just like this one has not. if this has outlived its usefulness, the program is work exactly like it should. the committee has decided not to impose a reser

we think there's sufficient evidence to show the petitioner in this case -- >> the petitioner's counsel agrees there's sufficient evidence to convict. >> i think he has a different view of what a proper instruction is. i understand the court remaundz for harmless error. i think that would be appropriate in this case because the government didn't act for this instruction, and then it was defending a harsher instruction it was given in the case. >> how do we -- when the jury is told that human injection is enough enough, he has to intend that these bath salts are not put in the bathtub but to ingest, that's all that -- that was the only mention that was charged. >> it -- that was the instruction that the government requested because that's what they said was enough, but the instruction that was given to the jury to find he knowingly lyly distributed a substance that had the same farm collagical effects of a controlled substance. >> let me start with the instruction. justice ginsburg under the government's interpretation of jury instructions as requiring the jury to find that the defendant

to look at the record case that petitioners would put on before the district court. there was three reasons why it was inappropriate. and they said that the paradox reactions and those that have disappeared from the case. would you not see them in the supply group this. he are extraordinarily rare and to the extent that they will happen the trained medical staff will catch those and never call the person unconscious. and secondly. they said that the lack of opponenting out. the sodium. and the that is never relevant to the question. the question is that does the drug render them unconscious. so, pain relief medication. what is the third point that you had. i was anxious to hear the third point. response to justice kagan's question. yes, yes. i forget right now. the second point here. the second unpinning. there is a fact that this is a lethal dose again completely consistent with the possibility of the potassium clear idea that is causing grave pain. there is a fact that it will render and keep a patient unconscious with a needle. completely consistent with that not

we can't tell i this i that the petitioner in in that case would have no problem satisfying the court. showing that it is a substantial risk of objectively untolerable risk of severe pain. that is going to be easier to make in that case. i am saying you do not know about the anesthesia. and maybe the anesthesia will cover all of that pain of being burned at the stake or maybe it will not. the court does not know. and it is not the world. and the district court lived in. we know. we know for a fact. this is the conceded facts. and experts say that this dosage is going to be rendering the petitioners unconscious, 60 to 90 seconds. and i know. that induction of anesthesia. it is a creag. and maintenance is keeping it at the state for so many hours for surgery. or the time it takes for potassium clear idea to kill somebody. it is commonly used for painful and that of an iv. and example is a good example. and we have pointed out that the drug is regularly. and routinely used. we have experts saying that as i just said that this drug will not keep you sleep, when two others are introduced y

i was the petitioner for the mound university laidy's home on 350 university avenue. when i heard they were trying to develop it. first residential, then school i call the the supervise, we took action and turned this down, we kept it the way it was for assisted living. so i'm here on behalf of 222 community of padona district, who signed the petition, to make the historical landmark, because this building has history of 18 p 84. of gym lick, who was the original man who dedicated $100,000 then it was a school three story building structure. 1930, burned down. at that time after school was turned to the name of gym link ladies's home. the new building was built 1931, which is 84 years old. and it was designated university mound ladies' home at that time it was 22 acres that gym lick dedicated, with the 100,000. some how, the board of directors, embezzled the money, so they tried to loan money from other developers and loan money from banks, it came to the point they wanted to sell it because they don't have money. so we got it. anyhow this building has architecture fe

. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board appellants or go petitioners make 3 requests. >> identify yourselves i'm helen i represent the permit holder tenant in this case request jurisdiction to be reopened for 3 reasons one they claim, i.e., they didn't receive notice and the permit was on the in bad faith and 3 the permit concealed to them after the appeal period last well, the response one no notice required under any regulations or law by the city or the landlord to give them notice for this particular kind of permit this permit was requested not a permit to determine whether the unit was code compliant or not a simple permit a permit to determine whether that was a legal four unit building and as soon as the gentleman received notice or claims of allegations that his building and particular the tent unit was legal which we heard for the very first time in 12 years he contacted the department of building inspection and requested them to come and look and am i under the wrong belief i purchased this building have records that indicates it a 4 unit leg

. >> if the court rules in favour of the co-petitioners is the fight over, is that it or will there be little hurdles and traps and snares over the place? >> there's be backlash. if the court rules in favour of the couples. they will say the constitutional marriage are not constitutional and everywhere needs to be afforded the same opportunities as civil law. what i'm anticipating, we are seeing around the religious backlash in the states where you opened up talking about where legislators are trying to put forth the amendments saying if this happens, we'll let religious institutions to be able to discriminate and not accept that this is law and omply to it >>> if you were offered a job in new orleans, dallas - a good good job - can you take it. are there some places where it will be taken care of or are some places just too complicated . >> that's the problem we have now. we would do what we did in d.c. when we were engage in 2009 marriage was not legal. we were going to have to go to connecticut to get married. we decided instead to fight for the right to marry. so i would say if i w

the petitioner came back and said, three of those aren't easy because they're circuit splits. in two of them, the splits are because the definitions of the offenses, the elements of the offenses were quite different. child abuse meant something very different in one jurisdiction from another. >> you take the position, so long as there is some easy cases, the statute can't be vague. >> i don't think the court has to go nearly that far, justice scalia. in this case, you have four -- >> you don't take that position? >> this court -- >> i thought your brief took that position. >> this court's decision do suggest that. i don't think the court has to go all the way to that position in order to conclude -- >> what is the standard? this goes back to what justice scalia was saying before, i mean, there is conduct that everybody agrees is annoying. there are rates that everybody agrees are just -- unjust and unreasonable. how much do we have to say that the core has shrunk and the margins have taken over before we're willing to do this? >> i think the starting point is to look at whethe

but the petitioners, these gay and lesbian couples -- >> or not. they are saying leave it to the people. it will be worked out later or not. >> what these gay and lesbian couples are doing is playing claim to the promise of the 14th amendment now. it is radically the duty of this court, as it was in lawrence, to decide what the 14th amendment requires. i would suggest that in a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors raise our children side by side with the rest of us, theytribute theytribute -- they contribute as members of the community and it is untenable they can be denied the right of equal protection in the institution of marriage or be required to wait until the majority decide they are ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals. gay and lesbian people are equal. they deserve the equal protection of the law and they deserve it now. thank you. >> thank you, general. >> mr. burse? requires. >> thank you mr. chief justice. respondents are not saying we are ready. this case isn't about how to define marriage. it

of petitioners are correct manifests itself them there will be unconstitutional pain-and-suffering. my friend admitted that. if, in fact a person is burned alive they didn't have appropriate anesthesia it would be unconstitutional >> if the person was burned alive would that be unconstitutional? >> it would be. the.is that the district court below found that there is a greater risk of using that but it was unquantifiable. if that risk manifests itself there will be a constitutionally intolerable execution's. the drug formula that issue was using them soviet by bentall. >> rendered a person completely unconscious. with that be cruel and unusual punishment? >> i think the problem is not rendering someone unconscious. the problem is and is necessary is to ensure the person maintains a deep a deep level. >> anesthesiologist called in to make sure this person feels no pain whatsoever. but that not be a violation anyway? >> being burned alive from the inside. >> that is exactly what it is, justice kagan. >> you think there are certain phases in which burning someone at the stake would be

herman was in charge of redevelopment efforts in the 1960s and petitioners say homes and businesses were lost because of his urban renewal. >>> another road closure in the bay area expected to cause major traffic backups later this month. kpix 5's don ford says it's so crews can finish off the billion-dollar presidio parkway project that connects san francisco to the golden gate bridge. >> reporter: after more than six years the new doyle drive is almost done. the tunnels are almost finished. but there's one more big headache coming. >> why we're here today is to let people know about a full closure of doyle drive which is south of the golden gate bridge. >> reporter: not for a couple weeks yet but starting may 28th, the entire roadway will be closed to traffic for 79 hours. this will allow construction crews to remove the detour and finally open traffic in to the finished tunnels. >> to try and stay away from the area. we are expecting major delays on the detour. >> reporter: doyle drive handles more than 100,000 cars a day and traffic will be detoured on to 19th avenue, also known as h

. >> i just wanted -- we agree with the petitioner. the exemplar crimes do not involve an element characteristically of serious potential risk of physical injury to another. another. arrives because of the elements of the crime and the original clause as a freestanding clause and the exemplars were added back in -- >> i see. >> so that is not really a viable solution. the viable solution is for many crimes they do not pose the empirical conundrums. when they do, and the government is not able to satisfy the court or the court is not able to be satisfied there is a fix on the ordinary case that it can say the risk is comparable to the exemplar crimes. the crime falls out. you can you can have many crimes no one ever contests are covered, mail fraud, gambling and crimes that we have lifted that are not seriously contested. we lifted -- we listed 17 of them. to have to be set aside. >> i think even in the ones that you think are easy they are only easy in the abstract. that was a good example. everyone has a sense that it is dangerous if

performing arts group lending cultural influences and seeking a performing arts visa or the eb-5 petitionerforming a business enterprise, this basic principle was my guide and my responsibility to fulfill. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. >> i think deputy secretary now recognize i will recognize myself for five minutes. let me say first again i did not treat this report, had nothing to do with it. it raises serious allegations and you, i know, sir, of all people know that i have an oversight responsibility under the constitution. i wanted to go through some of the issues that have been raised by the report to give you the opportunity to respond to that. first, i know in april of 2010 you issued an ethics policy to all of your employees and i'd like to clerk to provide the policy memorandum to the witness. i just want to ask you, first, why did you issue this ethics policy and what was the purpose pos behind it? >> mr. chairman, i issued this ethics policy because the principles articulated in this policy are very important and are amicable to everyone in the agency. you

on the ground that petitioner didn't present sufficient evidence to abut a theory the government wasn't making at trial, as to why we have and why we enforce forfeiture rules. this court could quite easily resolve this case, there are two ways in which this can be proven but the government in this case, to the extent it has a special new theory about illegal under some other law, has waived that argument by failing to preserve that. >> if i can preserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you counsel. >> my friend was almost correct about the extent of the disagreement that's left in this case. our position is not that we can prevail if we can prove that the defendant believed that his conduct was illegal under some law other than the csa or the analog act. our prussian is we can prevail if we can prove that the defendant knowingly distributed the drug, and he knew his distribution of the drug was illegal generally. >> my question is that i posed to him is really for you. >> would you mind repeating it? >> well, i'll try. suppose you have to show, and i think you do, that the defendant d

thank you for your tireless investigations in trying to make our department of homeland security petitioner. it is appreciated. there's a lot of discussion back and forth on this incident about vague secret service service poly about alcohol and drinking and driving mitchell take is a little more simple. would driving through a marked potential crime scene be acceptable performance offduty either sober inebriated? >> neither sir. >> would entering the white house complex buzzed or inebriated be considered acceptable off-duty behavior? >> no. >> the second in command who was involved with this incident, what kind of public confidence goss -- does it instill when that occurs that we can protect the president of the united states? >> well, i share your concern particularly given the fact that he was responsible for all the operations within the white house complex. >> what kind of example do you think that sets to the agents and also the seriousness of the duties that ought to be performed, whether on duty or off, knowing that any of them at any moment could be called upon to protect the leade

is the commission aware that there are 140 patents related to proposed technology held by the petitioner to mandate this technology on all table saws? >> are you referring that question to me? >> yes, ma'am. >> let me say this. quite frankly, quite honestly, my colleague commissioner adler, this is his pet project and i don't mean to pass the buck because this is not a priority of mine nor do i think it should be a priority of the agency, to your point about patents and concerns about that i have tremendous concerns about that. but it is not a project quite frankly that i think should be a priority of the agency now. >> i have one more question. you recently stated that the sole basis for recommendation to the ban of most widely used chemicals was cumulative risk assessment which found the majority of citizens advisory panel recommendation which found the majority of risk associated with chemicals was from another chemical, dehp. can you explain concerns for using cumulative risk assessment as a basis for such regulatory determination? >> thank you. the chap and the proposed rule is of g

to bring our fraud detection and national security expertise to bear in the vetting of the eb- 5 petitioners. i common you for that do you know if this in this case they were vetted for national security reasons? would you enter into a case like this and reright a decision with a national security concern? let me say two things. one that i was brought. i became involved in the case to address issues. number one. and not the all of the issue that's were involved in the case. so this draws an issue. a concern. if i may mr. chairman. vetting the applicants. this is very important. and it goes to the number of the issues. i read a report that raised concerns of national security or fraud in this case. i referred this case immediately, myself to the fraud detection direct rat. and when the issue arose in the case and i believe that it was subsequent to our resolution of the at risk management and contingency ewity issues in the case i learn of a concern. i believed it was a public concern. not one that percolated within our agency. and i brought in our fraud detection and personnel to look at it.

questions, no doubt each juror was sincere when he said he would be a fair and impartial to the petitioner but psychological impact requiring such a declaration before one's fellows is often -- who amongst us with as of the question, no when asked if you can be fair and impartial? that is precisely why an individual -- is required. >> thank you. >> may please the court, i would like prevent a pick up right where the argument left off on the pointed out pretrial publicity. when the district court said after doing the collective questioning, the defense counsel could bring up jurors that they wanted individually question the court to not limit in any way the defendant to just asking about the question of whether somebody had express an opinion. i think if you read the transcript when the court started doing the individual question, of jurors, you will see that the defense counsel was setting a variety of reasons for why they wanted to question somebody. there was not a point with somebody offered a reason to question somebody in at the court said no, i am not going to let you ask a question

one petitioner writing "there should be no place for people who get rich holding up family values whileer intouch published a police report saying that josh duggar engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with five underage girls when he was 14 and 15 years old. a source confirming to abc news overnight that police report stemmed from an investigation launched after oprah winfrey's production company harpo was tipped to the allegations when planning a segment on the duggars in 2006. and notified authorities. >> let's go. >> yay! >> reporter: last week, the 27-year-old father of three took to facebook admitting that as a 46 teen he acted inexcusably "for which i'm sorry and deeply regret." duggar was never arrested or charged with a crime. the police report now expunged. >> advertising dollars and ratings. both of those will be affected by this scandal. >> reporter: with the show set to enter its 11th season this year, tlc isn't saying if it will cancel the show or fire joshua duggar. >> always resolve your conflicts. >> reporter: but one major sponsor, general mills, already pulling its

has further questions no doubt each juror was sincere when he should be fair and impartial to the petitioner. psychological impact requiring a declaration is often his father. who amongst us would answer the question no one asked if it's a fair trial. that is why individual is required. >> thank you very much your honor. >> may i please the court. your honor, i would like briefly to pick up where the argument left off on the point about the pretrial publicity. when the district court said after doing the collective questioning that the defense counsel could bring a jurors said they wanted to individually questioned, the court did not limit in any way the defendant should just asking about the question of whether someone had expressed an opinion. if you read the transcript when the court started doing the individual questioning of jurors will see that defense only citing a variety of reasons for why they wanted to question somebody. there was a point where they offered a reason to question somebody in the court said no i will not let you ask a question so that is not a sufficient basis. a fai

is the commission aware that there are 140 patents related to proposed technology held by the petitioner to mandate this technology on all table saws? >> are you referring that question to me? >> yes, ma'am. >> let me say this. quite frankly and quite honestly, my colleague, commissioner adler, this is his pet project. and i don't mean to pass the buck because this is not a priority of mine nor do i think it should be a priority of the agency. but to your point about the patents and the concerns about that, i have tremendous concerns about that. but it's not a project, quite frankly, that i think should be a priority of the agency right now. >> i have one more question. you recently stated that the sole basis for chap's recommendation to the ban of most widely used chemicals was a cumulative risk assessment which found that the majority i guess of citizens advisory panel recommendation which found that the majority of the risk associated with these chemicals was from another chemical, dehp. can you explain concerns for using cumulative risk assessment as a basis for such regulatory deter

is the commission aware that there are 140 patents related to proposed technology held by the petitioner to mandate this technology on all table saws? >> are you referring that question to me? >> yes, ma'am. >> let me say this. quite frankly, quite honestly, my colleague commissioner adler, this is his pet project and i don't mean to pass the buck because this is not a priority of mine nor do i think it should be a priority of the agency, to your point about patents and concerns about that i have tremendous concerns about that. but it is not a project quite frankly that i think

department for and the department has received literally thousands of comments in support of the petitioners request. the fncsa itself set the regulation would decrease the number of fatal crashes annually. and would have minimal cost since the governors are already installed on many trucks. yet this has lingered within the department since i believe 2011 and has been delayed 21 times. could you tell us why the department has failed to issue these regulations on speed limiters so many years after the initial petition despite widespread support and evidence of their effectiveness? >> well first of all, i want to commend not only you but many of the stake holders pushing for this because we do believe that there is a benefit and that benefit to having a rule in place here. of course, some of it predates me but i can tell you from the agency perspective, there has been a lot of work done to quantify the safety benefits in terms of crashes injuries and fatalities that have been -- that would be prevented. the department also had to complete analysis of fatality analysis reporting systems and gen

one petitioner writing, there should be no place for people who get rich holding up family values whilest, all of this after "in touch" published a police report alleging josh duggar engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with five girls. who were underage when he was 14 and 15 years old. a source confirming that police report stemmed from an investigation launched after oprah winfrey's production company harpo was tipped to accusations while planning a segment on the duggars in 2006 and notified authorities. >> last week the 27-year-old father of three took to facebook admitting that as a teenager, he acted inexcusably for which i am extremely sorry and deeply regret. duggar was never arrested or charged with a crime. the police report now expunged. >> advertising dollars and ratings. both of those will be affected by this scandal. >> with the show set to enter its 11th season this year, tlc isn't saying whether it will cancel the show or fire joshua duggar. >> always resolve your conflicts. >> but one major sponsor, general mills, already pulling its ads in the wake of the scandal. >

, performing art group lending cultural influences and seeking performing arts visa or the eb-5 petitionerming a business enterprise, this basic principle was my guide my responsibility to fulfill. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. >> i thank deputy secretary. now recognize myself for five minutes. let me just say first again i did not create this report. had nothing to do with it. it raises serious allegations. and you, i know sir, of all people know that i have a oversight responsibility under the cons stewing. -- constitution. i wanted to go through some of the issues that have been raised by the report to give you the opportunity to respond to that. and first i know in april 2010, you issued an ethics policy to all of your employees and i'd like the clerk to provide the policy memorandum to the witness. i just want to ask you first, why did you issue this ethics policy and what was the purpose behind it? >> mr. chairman, i issued this ethics policy because the principles articulated in this policy are very important and are applicable to everyone in the agency. you co

along with two other producers they were a petitioner against china years ago. as a result of that action anti-dumping duties and counter veiling duty duties were put in place. why? this product was coming in illegally subsidized and dumped, sold below cost. they went through the right process. they were able to get these tariffs in place as it related to china. however, chinese traders began to approach u.s. producers and importers with proposals even before the case ended to circumvent this so that the trade orders that would be in place would, with regard to china would be circumvented by sending this product to a third country where this strand would be relabeled possibly repackaged to reflect a different country of origin. by doing so, again these anti-dumping and counterveiling duties would be avoided. once these trade orders against the p.c. strand were entered malaysia did become a new source significant new source for imports through this transshipment approach. that is what this new legislation goes after. it says when you do this, these kinds of schem