Million dollar. Whats the difference between those two and is that hypocrisy . Its completely different. The sgr is an expense that we have. Its not going to go away. The longer we prolong it the more expensive it is. It is an investment in people in that bill. We not only have the doc fix, i call it a remedy for our seniors. We all invest in the health of our children. One of the first bills we sent to president obamas desk we had been passing it but couldnt get it signed until we had a democratic president and president obama signed it in this legislation. We extend that and investing in the health of our children is a very positive investment. Some of it is paid for. We have an initiative to help poor seniors, very low income seniors. Thats paid for by increasing calls to the very top well to do seniors. Some of it is paid for. Some of it is not. All of it is an investment. Thats an expense with no value. Do you see any issues in which the example of the sgr episode may be replicate
I use experience you know, i have no idea whatsoever. And pozner suggested, i think i picked that up go and do empirical research. Why doesnt the government do it . Commissions tried to do it. Doesnt know where to begin. There are so many statutes. I think, Justice Breyer the very difficulty and unmanageability of the enterprise suggests it is not what congress had in mind. What congress had in mind was identifying classes of offenses that judges are confident involve serious potential risks of physical injury to another possibly the similarity in kind inquiry when the mens rea isnt satisfied. What Congress Expected courts to do was to analyze what the conduct is that is involved in it, compare it to the listed offenses and see if the risks are similar. Does the department of justice does the department of justice do any of that . Is one that the prosecutor asks for, and is there any guidance coming from the department of justice, guidance to the u. S. Attorneys, who are going to be as
Facts of this case the Economic Situation are somewhat different that are ordinarily true in this industry because as handlers the hornes actually assumed the full financial responsibility for the raisins that were not turned over to the department of agricultural. The producers in this case were fully paid for their raisins. This is a factual finding to be found in the judicial officers opinion at 66 a of the appendix to the petition. The hornes paid the producers for their raisins corn to the judicial officer, those raisins became part of the inventory of the hornes. When the risen Administrative Committee which i will refer to as the r. A. C. Came after the raisins it was the hornes and the hornes only who bore the economic burden of this taking. I thought the growers were paid only for the volume that they were permitted that was permitted the permitted volume and that they were not paid for what goes in the reserve pool . Justice ginsburg that is true in the ordinary coarse. That
Prices and so. If this couple were to give up on this idea and try to buy a home that met their needs, it would be much more expensive than it had been when it was purchased in 2007. It might be the kind of thing that drives families out of San Francisco. I feel fortunate to have been lucky enough to 30 years ago buy a fairly large house on the west side of town which i couldnt afford today, but the difference in having the space when you have multiple floors with children on one floor and in laws on another floor, makes life more pleasant and more functional especially when you are trying to do some business out of the home too which the couple has. I feel they are meeting the constitutional criteria and three out of the five. You dont necessarily have to put an elevator in but in a practical sense they are eliminating the dysfunctional features it had and turning it to a more functional house. This is what happens when you buy a victorian and try to make it functional is very expensi