you said it won't affect pre-existing conditions if the petitioners have their way, there will not be an affordable care act to protect pre-existing conditions on the severability question. us insight how you can be so unequivocal in opposing the majority decisions but have an open mind when it comes to the future of the affordable care act.ab >> sure. thank you for the question, senator durbin because it gives me an opportunity to make my position clear. when i wrote, and as this was as law professor, about those decisions, i did critique the statutory interpretation of the majorityri opinions, and as i he mentioned before my description of them was consistent with the way a chief justice roberts describes the statutory question. but i think that your concern is that because i critique the statutory reasoning that i am aca.le to the and that because i am hostile to the aca that i would decide a case of particular way. and i assure you that i am not. i am not hostile to the aca. .. , commented and we can talk another time about the context and distinctions between academic writing and

barsky, the seventh arcuit held that petitioner's prior convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses under certain criminal act. again, following precedent of the supreme court and the seventh circuit. i'm just picking out a few. you have got a very full record of these. in my view, i only found one case where you actually did not follow seventh circuit president. -- p[recedent. and that was the case of g v. the united states. why did you not follow the precedent then? judge barrett: in that case there was precedent that was all on point and the supreme court issued a series of subsequent decisions which called our prior precedent into doubt. so, the seventh circuit has a rule called circuit rule 40e and when we conclude as a full-court you circulated opinion to the full court to say i think our president should be overruled because it had fallen out of step with later developments in the supreme court. i circulated that precedent, the opinion pursuant to 40e, and the full court agreed and we overruled precedent. sen. crapo: the way i would summarize that is the court, with

if the petitioners have their way, there will not be an affordable care act to protect pre-existing conditions on the severability question. give us an insight how you can be so unequivocal in opposing but haveity decisions an open mind when it comes to the future of the affordable care act? judge barrett: sure. thank you for that question senator durbin -- question, senator durbin. wrote as a law professor of those decisions, i did critique the statutory interpretation of the majority opinion and as i mentioned before my description was consistent with the way that chief justice roberts described the statutory question. i think your concern is because i critiqued the statutory reasoning that i am hostile to the aca and because i am hostile to the aca that i would decide the case of particular way, and i assure you i am not. i am not hostile to the aca. i am not hostile to any statute that you have. i have commented, we can talk about the distinctions between academic riding and judicial decision-making, -- writing and judicial decision-making, this is an entirely different legal question of s

without health petitioners who fall under the health department. that does away i don't understand why can't the government give us the chance. to jubilation in. saddam's government and rebels signed a landmark peace deal it's a dead ending decades of war in the country. it's good to have your company. traditional healers in south africa are demanding recognition from the government for their work during the coronavirus pandemic herbalists a better method should be considered in the search for a covert 19th. in south africa as it is of the rest of the continent traditional healers often the 1st and last line of defense against illnesses for people who are marginalized and cannot access conventional medicine in fact the w.h.o. estimates that as many as 80 percent of people in africa consults traditional he's talking to an expert after this report. the traditional. have taken to the streets to our government's attention. they want to be recognized as frontline workers in the fight against health. they want the government to. take our support to them

we don't just say i vote that the petitioner should win, or i vote the respondent should win. we have to give reasons for every decision we make, sometime in the process stating a reason you begin to say on my right did i overlook this question or that question. and not often, but sometimes injustice will say this opinion will not right, i was wrong at the conference, i'm going to take the other position. that justice will notify the rest of us, and we will live the room, and we agree to disagree and the justice will end up writing for the majority, for the dissent if we don't. then what you would see in most appellate courts in the united states, except the tip the typical a couple of benches three, and it's easier to have a conversation among three then among nine. so you have to respect that your colleagues are not there to hear along speech from you. we see we speak as i said in seniority order, so this term, i'm number seven. next term all be number six. it's great to go first because you can tell the rest in a persuasive statement what you think of the case. but when you

petitioners in the case demonstrate marriage and buddies a love that may and were even passed death and it would be misunderstood these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. their plea as they do respect it so deeply they seek to fulfill its obligations themselves. their hope isn't to be condemned to a life of loneliness. they ask for equal dignity in the eyes ofti the law, that the constitution grants them that right. i would hope we agree with justice ginsburg but i'm afraid that is a view that is not shared by judge barrett critical of the extension of civil rights laws to protect people saying an event that it does seem to strain to say that it demands it however the supreme court held otherwise where they held for the court in the decision that employment discrimination on the basis should include gender identity and sexual orientation. judge barrett issued several findings that indicated a narrow view and civil rights laws designated to protect american workers from discrimination based on race or age and judge barrett voted against a panel decision that ruled

the petitioners rights were violated when taxes at a lower rate were collected from their competitors. it may be assumed that all ground for a claim for refund would have fallen if the state promptly upon discovery of the discrimination, had removed it by collecting the additional taxes from the favorite competitors. by such collection the petitions grievances would have been addressed, the right and vote is that equal treatment and such treatment will be a taint either their competitors taxes are increased, or their own reduced. but it is clear that a tax payer who has been subjected to discriminatory taxation through the favoring of others, in violation of federal law. cannot be required themselves to assume the burden of seeking an increase of the taxes which others should have paid -- to the necessity of awaiting such action by the state officials on their own initiative. typically clear expression from brandeis ' pen. in a 1970 decision, justice holland followed and expanded upon justice brandeis ' lead, explaining where a statute is defective because of under inclusion, there ex

commission just last week hosted a daylong technical conference that was requested by a range of petitionerse way from the natural gas supply association, which includes exxon mobil, two environmental groups, two consumer groups -- to environmental groups, to consumer groups, where we looked at all of the legal implications if states could pursue carbon pricing. my big take away from that discussion was that numerous folks thought it was within the commission's legal authority to examine this question, and that a wide range of participants said a carbon price, not regulations, not subsidies, but a price on carbon would be the most economically efficient way to mitigate climate. guy: continuing that train of thought, if we were to see that happen, when do you think the u.s. would be carbon neutral? neil: i think we are already on an excellent trend. if you look at u.s. power sector in missions, -- emissions, we have done a great job squeezing carbon out of the u.s. power sector. it has been market driven approaches that have led to it. i am proud of an action the commission took in september,

constitution has a retirement that states that the election, and we have a long standing extreme court petitionerking about super president dent that we've been hearing about recently, that the election must be run under the laws that are enforced at the time of the election. what the pennsylvania supreme court said is we don't care about the elected ledges literature and the governor having signed that law in the past, we decided 4-3 we're going to toss out the existing law and run this election under a different set of rules. i think problematic >> bill: going back to the refresh button >>> bill, bill, get help, now >> bill: see you later. joe biden calling reports about his son's overrule seas dealings a smear campaign. journal lift greenwald has been critical of some outlets failure to report this >> why does that allow them to evaluate the emails and examine whether or not joe biden actually engaged in misconduct? my psoriasis. cosentyx works on all of this. cosentyx can help you look and feel better by treating the multiple symptoms of psoriatic arthritis. don't use if you're allergic to co

petitioners shall actively monitor the area to prevent the loitering of any persons on the property adjacent to the licensed premised as depicted on the a.b.c. 253 form, and the consumption of alcohol off the premises are prohibited. these are the conditions signed by the applicant on october 10. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. good morning, mr. sheehy. you are the applicant. >> good morning, supervisor. i'm glad that we have supervisor peskin here, too. >> supervisor mandelman: supervisor ronen is here, also. >> we have been operating at swig with our full operating liquor license with a full operating bar. the request is to expand our swig unit to the adjacent unit, called the olympic cafe. the olympic cafe has been in business over 30 years. we took over operations of the olympic cafe in 2019. at that time, we added a beer and wine license, and we continued to operate, serving breakfast and lunch. we are now in the process of combining both businesses, where we will be able to offer breakfast, lunch, and dinner when the city opens back up to the many guests who come to us from the nei

if the petitioners in have their way, there will not be an affordable care act to protect pre-existing conditions on the severability question. give us an insight how you can be so unequivocal in proposing the majority decisions in fib seb bilious and have an open mind when it comes to the affordable care act? >> thank you for that question, senator, because it gives me an opportunity to make my position clear. when i wrote -- this was as a law professor, about those decisions, i did critique the statutory interpretation of the majority opinions. as i mentioned before, my description of them was consistent with the way that chief justice roberts described the statutory question. but i think that your concern is that because i critiqued the statutory reasoning that i'm hostile to the aca, and that because i'm hostile to the aca that i would decide a case a particular way. i assure you that i am not. i am not hostile to the aca. i'm not hostile to any statute that you pass. the cases on which i commented, and we can talk at another time i guess about the context, the distinctions between

you said it won't affect preexisting conditions if the petitioners have their way, there will not be an affordable care act to protect preexisting conditions. so give us insight on how you can be unequivocal in opposing the majority decisions in the two previous cases but have an open mind when it comes to the future of the affordable care act. >> sure. thank you for that question because it gives me an opportunity to make my position clear. when i wrote, as a law profe professor, about those decisions i did critique the statutory interpretation of the majority opinions. as i mentioned before, my description of them was consistent with the way chief justice roberts described the statutory question. you but i think that your concern is that because i critiqued the statutory reasoning that i'm hostile to the aca and that because i'm hostile to the aca that i would decide a case a particular way, and i assure you that i am not. i am not hostile to the aca, i'm not hostile to any statute that you pass. the cases on which i commented, we can talk at another time about the context, the dis

recommends approval with the following conditions: the petitioner shall actively monitor the area under their control in order to prevent the loidering on their premises. and no noise shall be audible at any nearby residents, and as of june 8 of this year, the applicant agreed to the conditions. >> chairman: thank you. let's hear from the ap candor. >> this would be the time for sarah o o'rourke to address the board. >> chairman: we've been looking at her ceiling, or something. and she may need to unmute herself as well. >> chairman: do you want to try samuel? >> sure. do you have the presentation that we could put on the screen, if possible. >> we could coordinate it if you hang on for just a moment. mr. calipa, is there any chance you can share your presentation from the is arts foundation? sure. just give me one moment. >> there it is. it is displaying now, mr. ray? >> excellent. >> chairman: there we go. >> i see it. the joseph arts society is a non-profit arts foundation that was established to bring art to the stoneland san francisco community. our commission statement is to intro

petitioners shall actively monitor the area to prevent the loitering of any persons on the property adjacent to the licensed premised as depicted on the a.b.c. 253 form, and the consumption of alcohol off the premises are prohibited. these are the conditions signed by the applicant on october 10. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. good morning, mr. sheehy. you are the applicant. >> good morning, supervisor. i'm glad that we have supervisor peskin here, too. >> supervisor mandelman: supervisor ronen is here, also. >> we have been operating at swig with our full operating liquor license with a full operating bar. the request is to expand our swig unit to the adjacent unit, called the olympic cafe. the olympic cafe has been in business over 30 years. we took over operations of the olympic cafe in 2019. at that time, we added a beer and wine license, and we continued to operate, serving breakfast and lunch. we are now in the process of combining both businesses, where we will be able to offer breakfast, lunch, and dinner when the city opens back up to the many guests who come to us from the nei

petitioners shall actively monitor the area to prevent the loitering of any persons on the property adjacentnsed premised as depicted on the a.b.c. 253 form, and the consumption of alcohol off the premises are prohibited. these are the conditions signed by the applicant on october 10. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. good morning, mr. sheehy. you are the applicant. >> good morning, supervisor. i'm glad that we have supervisor peskin here, too. >> supervisor mandelman: supervisor ronen is here, also. >> we have been operating at swig with our full operating liquor license with a full operating bar. the request is to expand our swig unit to the adjacent unit, called the olympic cafe. the olympic cafe has been in business over 30 years. we took over operations of the olympic cafe in 2019. at that time, we added a beer and wine license, and we continued to operate, serving breakfast and lunch. we are now in the process of combining both businesses, where we will be able to offer breakfast, lunch, and dinner when the city opens back up to the many guests who come to us from the neighboring hot

you said it will not affect pre-existing conditions if the petitioners have their way there will note an affordable care act to protect existing conditions -- pre-existing conditions. how you can be, so unequivocal and opposing the haveity decisions and then an open mind when it comes to the future of the affordable care act. thank you for that question because it gives me an opportunity to make my position clear. when i wrote as a law professor about those decisions, i did critique the statutory interpretation of the majority opinion. as i mentioned before, i description was consistent with the way justice robert describes the question. your concern is that, because i critiqued the statutory reasoning i am hostile to the aca. and that because i'm hostile to the aca that i would decide a case a particular way. i assure you that i am not. i am not hostile to the aca. i am hostile to any statute. ,he cases in which i commented and we can talk another time about the context and distinctions between academic writing and judicial decision-making, those were on different issues. to assume

petitioners shall actively monitor the area to prevent the loitering of any persons on the property adjacent to the licensed premised as depicted on the a.b.c. 253 form, and the consumption of alcohol off the premises are prohibited. these are the conditions signed by the applicant on october 10. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. good morning, mr. sheehy. you are the applicant. >> good morning, supervisor. i'm glad that we have supervisor peskin here, too. >> supervisor mandelman: supervisor ronen is here, also. >> we have been operating at swig with our full operating liquor license with a full operating bar. the request is to expand our swig unit to the adjacent unit, called the olympic cafe. the olympic cafe has been in business over 30 years. we took over operations of the olympic cafe in 2019. at that time, we added a beer and wine license, and we continued to operate, serving breakfast and lunch. we are now in the process of combining both businesses, where we will be able to offer breakfast, lunch, and dinner when the city opens back up to the many guests who come to us from the nei

as grams petition was carried petitione -- graham's was carried around, cook's petition was carried around by methodists. graham and proslavery petitions growing 1500, evangelical signatures and dwarfing the few dozen on the antislavery petition. -- proslavery petition graham's word for word. it did not condemn slavery and any attempt to interpret either the old new testament as antislavery would prefer the word of god. instruction -- instructed that it in no way altered civil status, such as enslavement. the liberty conferred by christian faith was an internal freedom from sin and the devil, rather than any change in the believer's outward condition. paul's first letter to the corinthians establish that even christians slaves would remain loyal and obedient to their masters. colonial statutes had written this into law as early as 1677. conversion was not a ticket to emancipation. in other words, spiritual freedom and bodily coercion longed to two distinct fears. the first inward and religious and the second outward and political. arguments were made with new force to counter the methodist

if the petitioners have their way there will not be an affordable care act to protect pre-existing conditions. give us the insight of how you could be so unequivocal in opposing the majority the but have an open mind when it comes to the affordable care act? judge barrett: thank you for that question. it gives me an opportunity to make my position clear. when i wrote about those decisions, i did critique the statutory interpretations. as i mentioned before, my description was consistent with the way chief justice roberts described. i think your concern is that because i critique the statutory reasoning that i am hostile towards the aca. that is because i'm hostile that i would decide a case a particular way. i assure you i am not hostile to the aca. i'm not hostile to any statute that you pass. the cases in which i commented and we can talk at another time i guessed about the context, the distinctions between academic writing and judicial decision-making. those were entirely different issues. theuse i critique interpretation of the mandate or the phrase established by a there is anthat entire

not only did they have to be licensed but we had to do prime source verification on the national petitioner database. we had to look at their education, looked at their licensing, make sure there weren't any challenges and issues either from any agency thatwas out there. if they meet those requirements , and there is, if there's a gap in care absolutely we bring them into the network or if it's a continuity ofcare issue we bring them into the network . so that's been the standard and that's what it takes to get into that network. the other piece i want to bring out to some of the frustration that you've raised is we in regions 12 and three, we don't do the scheduling area the scheduling is done by the va so when they go into the databank, the first priority is to look at those practitioners that are part of regions one, two and three to be able to schedule those appointments and so part of the transition we just finished going live in june of this year with all three of the regions so some of that frustration may have been when there were the overlap which we did all the right reasons the v

if the petitioners have their way there will not be an , affordable care act to protect pre-existingditions, on the severability question. so give us the insight of how you could be so unequivocal in opposing the majority decisions of burwell,and king but have an open mind when it comes to the affordable care act? judge barrett: thank you for that question, senator durbin, because it gives me an opportunity to make my position clear. wrote, and this was as a law professor about those , decisions, i did critique the statutory interpretation of the majority opinions. before, myid description of them was consistent with the way chief justice roberts described the statutory question. but i think your concern is that because i critique the statutory reasoning that i am hostile , towards the aca. and that because i'm hostile to the aca that i would decide a , case a particular way. and i assure you that i am not i , am not hostile to the aca. i'm not hostile to any statute that you pass. and the cases in which i commented, and we can talk at another time, i guess, about the context and the

as some of the petitioners demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure past death. it would be misunderstood to say they disrespect marriage. they do respect it. respect it so deeply they seek to fulfill its obligations themselves. their hope is not to be condemned to a life of loneliness excluded from one of the institution's oldest institution. i hope we agree with justice ginsburg, but i'm afraid that is a view not shared by judge bennet. judge bennet was critical of the civil rights laws to prevent transgender people saying at an event it does seem to strain the text. the supreme court held otherwise in clayton county where justice gorsuch held for the court in a 6-3 decision that discrimination on the basis of sex should read to include gender identity. judge barrett has issued several disturbing findings that indicate a cramped and narrow view on civil rights laws designated to protect american workers from discrimination based on race and age. judge barrett voted against a panel decision that ruled against an african american employee whose companies involunt

barsky, the seventh arcuit held that petitioner's prior convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses under certain criminal act. again, following precedent of the supreme court and the seventh circuit. i'm just picking out a few. you have got a very full record of these. in my view, i only found one case where you actually did not follow seventh circuit president. -- p[recedent. and that was the case of g v. the united states. why did you not follow the precedent then? judge barrett: in that case there was precedent that was all on point and the supreme court issued a series of subsequent decisions which called our prior precedent into doubt. so, the seventh circuit has a rule called circuit rule 40e and when we conclude as a full-court you circulated opinion to the full court to say i think our president should be overruled because it had fallen out of step with later developments in the supreme court. i circulated that precedent, the opinion pursuant to 40e, and the full court agreed and we overruled precedent. sen. crapo: the way i would summarize that is the court, with

barsky, the seventh arcuit held that petitioner's prior convictions no longer qualified as predicate offenses under certain criminal act. again, following precedent of the supreme court and the seventh circuit. i'm just picking out a few. you have got a very full record of these. in my view, i only found one case where you actually did not follow seventh circuit president. -- p[recedent. and that was the case of g v. the united states. why did you not follow the precedent then? judge barrett: in that case there was precedent that was all on point and the supreme court issued a series of subsequent decisions which called our prior precedent into doubt. so, the seventh circuit has a rule called circuit rule 40e and when we conclude as a full-court you circulated opinion to the full court to say i think our president should be overruled because it had fallen out of step with later developments in the supreme court. i circulated that precedent, the opinion pursuant to 40e, and the full court agreed and we overruled precedent. sen. crapo: the way i would summarize that is the court, with

if the petitioners have their way there won't be an affordable care act. so give us an insight how you can be so unequivocal in opposing the majority decisions in sebelius and in burwell but have an open mind when it comes to the future of the affordable care act. >> sure. thank you for that question, senator durbin because it gives me an opportunity to make my position clear. when i wrote this was as a law professor about those decisions, i did critique the statutory interpretation of the majority opinions. as i mentioned before, my description of them was consistent with the way that chief justice roberts described the statutory question. but i think that your concern is that because i critiqued the statutory reasoning that i'm hostile to the aca. and that because i'm hostile to the aca that i would decide a case a particular way. and i assure you that i am not. i'm not hostile to the aca, i'm not hostile to any statute that you have and the cases on which i commented and we can talk at another time about the context and distinctions between academic wri