People can shovel snow. If they work for the for the clinic, they can sweep the sidewalk, they can do maintenance, they can go in and they and out, but they cant utter a word. Well, that would be a different statute. But thats not this statute. This statute says that there is an exemption for employees of the facility if they are operating within the scope of their employment. And surely coming out and saying this is a safe facility is within the scope of their employment. Right. So how do you justify that . Forget about the conduct now. The speech thats allowed. One can speak and say its safe. The other cannot speak and say it is not safe. What i would argue, your honor, is that speech in that particular circumstance of the employee actually doing her job and not unnecessarily cluttering the buffer zone, what then that speech is simply incidental to the permissible conduct. And it doesnt make the statute on its face it doesnt make it viewpointdiscriminatory. Because as i said you thin
And so hopefully its obvious to everyone here this 30 billion the 80 billion are deeply intertwined. In order for the private sector to make those investments there has to be raw material coming out of the basic research. Weve talked a lot about that. In order for that investment in basic research to create new cures, it has to be that investment in private sector r d to develop those scientific discoveries into cures for patients. So talking about that 80 billion is important and its also the benefit of not being quite zerosum game that we have to come up with government funding in order to solve the problem. In order to enhance that investment, that 80 billion which hopefully is obvious if that goes up, all other things being equal will get more cures and more treatments coming out the other and. Well be saving more lives. We will be saving more lives. Including in china. And creating more jobs in this country as well as saving more lives. If that goes down 10 of course the opposite
Those formula Retail Businesses filed longstanding needs of the neighborhood but then opposition from starbucks and geary on Fourth Avenue and other efforts another times there ever some opposition and other times accepted to the process is flexible and depends on on the Community Wants and needs. Lastly page 8 of the report says that by creating disincentives for the formula retails to lock here the formula retail lower costs for independent retailers thats again, the issue of the rising represents that impacts by making neighborhood commercial place the formula retail help lower rents and reducing the costs for independent railways. In conclusion the strategic economy report gives decide makers the reason to have a dialog that reaches a reasonable outcome for residents and businesses. I think theres no storage of formula retail if San Francisco theres 12 hundred and 50 formula Retail Stores in the city thats 25 percent of our formula retail but compared to the national its 1 3rd is f
3, that since their meeting their recess was still on and lasted more than 3 days, it was a violation of that adjournment clause of the constitution. Now, thats one way to interpret it. Over a long period of time, they have apparently met pro forma on those days. Or we could try to make them mean the same thing, which would mean it was up to the senate. They consider that a meeting, its a meeting. What do we do . Or there is another option, Justice Breyer. Would you write that opinion, saying the senate of the United States has violated two provisions of the constitution . No, no. I dont think you need to write that opinion. All right. Why not . Because you might, perhaps, give the senate some deference with respect to requirements that apply only internally to the congress. But when what youre talking about is the senates use of pro forma sessions in a manner that deprives the president of authority that article ii would otherwise give would it i mean, thats my basic question really.
The executive was by rejecting the notion that the appointment power should reside with the senate. The framers considered that and they rejected it. And the reason they rejected it, as this court noted in its edmund opinion, was to protect the executive against encroachment by the legislature. But the compromise they settled on in moving away from that is that the president will nominate and the senate, if it so chooses, can confirm a nominee. You spoke of the intransigence of the senate. Well, they have an absolute right not to confirm nominees that the president submits. And it seems to me, following up on Justice Kagans point, youre latching on to the recess appointment clause as a way to combat that intransigence rather than to deal with the happenstance that the senate is not in session when a vacancy becomes open. Well, but those things there are often situations in which the senate is not in session when a vacancy becomes open or needs to be filled, i guess would be the more ac